ARTICLE IN PRESS

Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70

www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Model tests of geocell retaining structures

R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu
Department of Civil Engineering, National Taiwan University, Taipei 10617, Taiwan
Received 28 November 2006; received in revised form 4 March 2007; accepted 9 March 2007
Available online 30 April 2007

Abstract

Model tests were performed on nine model geocell retaining walls to examine the effect of the geocells as a major material in retaining
structures and the failure mechanism of the said structures under surcharge. The main variables in the tests include the height and the
facing angle of the structure, the type of surcharge, and the reinforcement embedded in the two types of externally stabilized structures,
i.e., gravity and facing types. Results showed that the deformation on the wall face and the backfill settlement both increased with
increasing facing angle and surcharge. For the gravity type, the maximum lateral displacement occurs at the top of the wall and two
failure modes can be observed, namely, interlayer sliding and overturning. For the facing type, due to its being lighter in weight, results
show more displacement and settlement than the former type. In regard to the systems with reinforcements embedded in the backfill or
the so-called hybrid systems, lateral displacement and settlement were both reduced significantly. Moreover, the reinforcing zone affects
the deformed shape of the wall. When the reinforcement was embedded in the upper layers, the lateral displacement present was reduced
significantly with the maximum value occurring at the mid-height of the wall. Conversely, for the case of reinforced lower layers, the
maximum displacement occurred at the top.
r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Geocells; Retaining structures; Stability; Model tests; Failure mode

1. Introduction the basic mechanisms of support. The two principal

Geocells are made from high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
or polyethylene (PE) strips, ultrasonically welded along their
width to form three-dimensional cells for containing soil.
Such confinement vastly improves granular soil’s shear
strength. This increased soil strength due to confinement
provides improved bearing capacity and/or prevents soil
erosion. Also, the structure of the geocells can be made to
conform to the topography of the place, and it is tolerable to
deformation or settlement due to flexibility. Likewise, geocells
can be transported easily and installed quickly. And,
vegetation can be planted into the cell; thereby improving
the amenity of the surrounding environment. Thus, the
geocell retaining wall, either gravity type or facing type, has
been applied to slope protection and related applications.
In regard to earth retention systems, O’Rourke and
Jones (1990) proposed a classification scheme according to
Corresponding author. Fax: 886 2 23629851.
E-mail address: rongherchen@ntu.edu.tw (R.H. Chen).
categories were externally and internally stabilized systems.
An externally stabilized system uses an external structural
wall to resist soil mass, such as gravity walls. An internally
stabilized system uses reinforcements embedded in the soil
and extending beyond the potential failure surface, such as
reinforced soils. Moreover, the hybrid systems combine
elements of both internally and externally supported soil.
They include tailed gabion and tailed masonry. Based on
this classification scheme, the gravity-type and facing-type
geocell walls may be regarded as the externally stabilized
systems, whereas, the combinations of these two types with
reinforcements are regarded as the hybrid systems.
Since 1980s, there has been increasing number on the use
of reinforcing elements and polymeric products to reinforce
soil. For example, reinforced retaining walls using geotex-
tiles or geogrids have been constructed and have performed
well for more than 20 years. The design concept and the
failure mechanism have been studied well by researchers.
However, only few have employed model tests. Wong et al.
(1994) used a geotextile reinforced model wall to examine

0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.03.001
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 57

Nomenclature T tensile strength of geocell (kN/m)

Uj split strength of geocell seam (kN/m)
Basic SI units are given in parentheses x horizontal displacement (mm)
a angle of wall face (degrees)
Cc coefficient of curvature f internal frictional angle of soil (degrees)
Cu coefficient of uniformity g soil moist unit weight (kN/m3)
c cohesion of soil (kPa) gd,max soil dry unit weight in the densest state (kN/m3)
Dr relative density (%) gd,min soil dry unit weight in the loosest state (kN/m3)
Dx grain diameter at x% passing by weight (mm) k angle of slope of backfill soil (degrees)
E elastic modulus of soil (kPa) n Poisson’s ratio of soil
Gs specific gravity of soil pi dimensionless factors
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s2) r soil density (kg/m3)
H height of retaining structure (m) s3 confining pressure (kPa)
h height of geocell (cm)
Im physical quantity of model Abbreviations
Ip physical quantity of prototype
L length of geocell (cm) FW facing-type wall
Pa atmospheric pressure ¼ 101.4 kPa GW gravity-type wall
Pj peel strength of geocell seam (kN/m) HDPE high-density polyethylene
Q surcharge (kPa) LVDT linear variable differential transformer
Sf scaling factor PE polyethylene
Sj seam strength of geocell (kN/m) SP poorly graded sands

the failure mode involved in the system. The wall was Table 1
surcharged by a uniformly distributed load on its top. The Properties of test sand
observed failure types were a block sliding and an overall Parameters Value
slip of a wedged-shape failure plane. Pinto et al. (1996)
studied the effect of reinforcement on a brick-facing wall. D10 (mm) 0.18
The wall was arranged with no reinforcement and with D30 (mm) 0.25
D50 (mm) 0.32
reinforcement of various layers; a layer of reinforcement
D60 (mm) 0.36
per two, three, and four brick layers. The wall was Cu 2.00
surcharged at the top until it failed. The failure modes Cc 0.96
exhibited two types: the walls with no or inadequate Gs 2.66
amount of reinforcement tended to fail by tilting, whereas gd;max (kN/m3) 16.1
gd;min (kN/m3) 14.1
the walls with adequate reinforcement presented visible
Soil classification (USCS) SP
cracks at its mid-height and then collapsed. Bathurst et al.
(2000) reported large-scale tests on five geosynthetic
reinforced walls which were constructed with a column of
dry-stacked modular concrete (segmental) units and one different if a soft or a rigid structure was used. However,
nominal identical wall constructed with a very flexible the walls studied by Racana et al. (2001) were of constant
wrapped face. The said paper presents some measured wall height. They did not consider the effect of variables such
performance data, numerical simulation results, and as the wall height, the wall’s facing angle, or the type of
implications of wall performance to current design wall, etc.
methods in North America. Recently, considerable interest has been shown in
In regard to the geocell reinforced walls, Racana et al. reinforced walls (Yoo and Jung, 2004; Bathurst et al.,
(2001) employed two kinds of material for constructing a 2005; Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, 2005; Park and Tan,
rigid and a soft reduced-scale walls, respectively, to study 2005; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Al Hattamleh and
the mechanical characteristics of the walls as well as the Muhunthan, 2006; Nouri et al., 2006; El-Emam and
interaction between geocells. The results showed that the Bathurst, 2007; Won and Kim, 2007). However, little has
geocell reinforcement can be analyzed as an apparent been published concerning geocell retaining structures. For
cohesion. The wall produced an active block under the this reason, this study intended to perform model tests on
loading area and a shearing zone bounded by the active geocell retaining structures to examine the effect of
block and the passive anchorage which had not been variables on the failure mechanism (such as deformation
subjected to any strain. Failure mechanisms were not and settlement characteristics) of the structure. It is hoped
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
58 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70
Fig. 1. Failure modes of the seam of geocells and samples.
that the test results will provide a valuable reference for
designing geocell retaining wall and for enabling it to
perform well.
2. Materials used for testing
2.1. Soil for testing
The soil used for backfill was a uniform sub-angular
silica sand containing 99.8% of silica. The properties of the
sand were: D50 ¼ 0.32 mm, Cu ¼ 2.00, Cc ¼ 0.96,
Gs ¼ 2.66, gd,max ¼ 16.1 kN/m3, gd,min ¼ 14.1 kN/m3 (see
Table 1). According to the Unified Soil Classification
System, the soil was classified as SP. Besides, in order to
observe the deformation of the soil during testing, the sand
was dyed in blue color. The physical properties of the sand
before and after dyeing including grain size distribution
were about the same, and therefore regarded as unchanged.
The results of triaxial tests showed that the peak friction
angle of dry sand increased with the relative density and
reduced as the confining pressure increased (Hong et al.,
2005). The relationship among the friction angle of dry
sand, relative density, and confining pressure can be
expressed as
 
s3
f ¼ 30:81 þ 13:38Dr  4:15Dr log , (1)
Pa
where Pa is the atmospheric pressure (101.4 kPa); Dr the
relative density (%) and s3 the confining pressure (kPa).
2.2. Similarity law and similitude material
To ensure a comparable behavior between the proto-
type-scale walls and the model-scale walls, the character-
istics of the model materials were analyzed by similarity
analysis (Baker et al., 1991). The physical characteristics of
the model and the prototype must satisfy the following
relationship:
I p ¼ Sf I m , (2)
where Ip and Im are physical quantities that pertain to the
prototype and the model, respectively, and Sf is a scaling
factor.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 59

2.2.1. Similarity law of model the two ends of the sample until the seam failed. The results
The quantities that affect the behavior of a geocell of seam strength test were 12.3 kN/m for junction shear
retaining structure backfilled with sandy soil must satisfy strength, 9.9 kN/m for peel strength, and 11.7 kN/m for
split strength.
f ðr; g; E; n; c; f; H; k; a; h; L; T; Sj ; Pj ; U j Þ ¼ 0, (3)
Since various wall heights (2 m, 4 m, 6 m) were simulated,
where r is the soil density, g the acceleration due to gravity, there is a need to search for various suitable materials.
E the elastic modulus of soil, n the Poisson’s ratio of soil, c Three kinds of paper were found to meet the requirement:
the cohesion of soil, f the internal frictional angle of soil, book binding paper, simile paper, and India paper. The
H the height of retaining structure, k the angle of slope tensile strength was determined by suspending a single
of backfill soil, a the angle of wall face, h the height of weight at the bottom of the paper. The results of the tensile
geocells, L the length of geocells, T the tensile strength of strength are shown in Table 2. The differences in p9 factors
geocells, Sj the seam strength of geocells, Pj the peel are 2.5%, 6.6%, and 7.4%, which are considered accep-
strength of geocell seam, and Uj the split strength of geocell table (see Table 3).
seam. The manufacturing method of the seam strength of
Due to the complicated relationships of the parameters model material also depends on the wall height. The test of
in the given function, dimension analysis was employed to seam strength used a single weight attached to the bottom
simplify the variables into a set of dimensionless terms, i.e., of the sample until the seam failed. By changing the
the so-called dimensionless p factors seaming method, and using similarity analysis for p10, p11,
p ¼ f ðp1 ; p2 ; p3 ; . . . ; pn Þ. (4) and p12 factors, suitable seams for various wall heights
were made. For example, the seam of a 2 m-high wall was
Choosing r, g, and H as the base of dimensional made from epoxy and bolts binding the model material.
analysis, there are twelve p groups that can be For a 4 m-high wall, the seam was made from white glue
obtained:p1 ¼ E=ðrgHÞ, p2 ¼ n, p3 ¼ c=ðrgHÞ, p4 ¼ f,
p5 ¼ k, p6 ¼ a, p7 ¼ h/H, p8 ¼ L/H, p9 ¼ T=ðrgH 2 Þ,
p10 ¼ S j =ðrgH 2 Þ, p11 ¼ Pj =ðrgH 2 Þ, p12 ¼ U j =ðrgH 2 Þ. Table 2
When the corresponding dimensionless p factors of Strength of prototype and model materials
model and prototype are all equal to each other, the model
HDPE Book binding Simile India
can be regarded as completely similar to the prototype.
paper paper paper
This means that
Tensile
ðpi Þm ¼ ðpi Þp . (5) strength
T (kN/m) 14.95 2.45 0.64 0.28
The determination of all the characteristics of the
Junction
materials involved in a model test, as required to meet shear strength
the similitude requirements, is difficult; therefore, three of Sj (kN/m) 12.34 1.90 0.54 0.19
the most important characteristics relevant to the tensile Junction peel
strength of the geocells, as well as the seam resistance, were strength
Pj (kN/m) 9.87 1.52 0.36 0.16
used in the similarity analysis to find the suitable materials
Junction split
and the suitable dimensions of geocells. This is because soil strength
deformation is restrained by cell confinement which Uj (kN/m) 11.73 1.78 0.51 0.18
depends on the tensile strength of geocells as well as the
seam strength. The related factors to the strength are p9,
p10, and p11.
Table 3
Comparison of the p-factors for prototype and model materials
2.2.2. Similitude material
To decide on the model material, the strength of the p9 p10 p11 p12
prototype material must be obtained in advance. The Prototype height 2m 0.244 0.202 0.161 0.192
strength of the model material can be determined through 4m 0.061 0.050 0.040 0.048
similarity analysis and be used as the reference for choosing 6m 0.027 0.022 0.018 0.021
the type of model material. The strength tests on the Model (height 0.8 m) Book binding 0.250 0.194 0.155 0.182
prototype material include tensile strength test of geocell paper
Simile paper 0.065 0.055 0.037 0.052
material and tests of junction shear strength, junction peel India paper 0.029 0.019 0.016 0.018
strength, and junction split strength (Cancelli et al., 1993). Difference in p-factors Book binding 2.46 3.96 3.87 5.21
The three failure modes of a junction are shown in Fig. 1. (%) paper
The tensile strength obtained from a wide width sample Simile paper 6.56 10.0 7.50 8.33
was 15 kN/m, (based on ASTM 4595-86). The sample for India paper 7.41 13.6 11.1 14.3
seam strength test has a width equal to the seam spacing Note: p9 ¼ T/(rgH2); p10 ¼ Sj =ðrgH 2 Þ; p11 ¼ Pj =ðrgH 2 Þ; p12 ¼
and a height equal to the cell height. Forces were applied at U j =ðrgH 2 Þ.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
60 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70

Air bag Loading Load cell

Vertical LVDT

LVDT 7 Geocell retaining

LVDT 8 LVDT 6 structure model
Sand box Horizontal LVDT

LVDT 1
Backfill
LVDT 2

80
27.5 cm LVDT 3 cm
100
cm LVDT 4
25
cm
LVDT 5

Steel bar

60 cm
110 cm

Fig. 2. Setup of instrumentation.

Table 4
Model test arrangements

Model Prototype Structure Backfill Loading Facing

number height (m) type reinforcement area Inclination
(1)

1 2 GW None Backfill 70
2 2 GW None Backfill 80
3 2 GW None Backfill 90
4 2 GW None Backfill 80
and wall
face
5 4 GW None Backfill 70
6 4 GW Upper layers Backfill 70
7 4 FW Upper layers Backfill 70
8 6 FW Upper layers Backfill 70
9 6 FW Lower layers Backfill 70

Note: GW ¼ gravity-type wall; FW ¼ facing-type wall.

Table 5
Fig. 3. Photograph of the model wall. Dimensions of prototype and model

Structure Cell height Junction Layers

resin and bolts. For a 6 m-high wall, the seam was stuck height (m) (cm) spacing (cm)
together by a double-face velcro. The results on the seam Prototype 2 25 33 8
strength test of model materials are shown in Table 2. The Model 0.8 10 13.2 8
differences in p10, p11, and p12 factors ranged from 3.9% to Prototype 4 25 33 16
14.3% (see Table 3). This was considered acceptable and Model 0.8 5 6.6 16
thus testing was commenced accordingly. Prototype 6 25 33 24
Model 0.8 3.3 4.4 24

3. Testing program and procedure

1.1 m  0.345 m  1 m (length  width  height) sand box.
Nine model walls 0.8 m high, with different facing angle, The box includes two 12 mm-thick glass sidewalls, to
wall type, and reinforcing zone, were constructed inside a observe the deformation of the slope. Steel bars affixed to
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 61

Fig. 4. Model walls of various facing angle (simulated wall height ¼ 2 m): (a) a ¼ 701, (b) 801, (c) 901, and (d) 801, loading on backfill and wall face.

Fig. 5. Model walls of different structure types (simulated wall height ¼ 4 m, a ¼ 701). Note: GW ¼ gravity-type wall; FW ¼ facing-type wall: (a) GW,
without reinforcement, (b) GW, with reinforcement, and (c) FW, with reinforcement.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
62 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70

L L
70° 70°
25cm
Reinforcements 5 cells
3.3cm L = 15.6cm 3.3cm
80cm 80cm
5 cells Reinforcements
L=15.6cm
25cm
6.6cm 6.6cm
Model No.8 Model No.9

Fig. 6. Model walls with different reinforcing zone (simulated wall height ¼ 6 m, a ¼ 701): (a) upper layers reinforced, and (b) lower layers reinforced.

30 The content of testing program is shown in Table 4. The

model test material model wall was designed and constructed similar to that of
HDPE segmental retaining structures (Koerner and Soong, 2001).
HDPE / silicone grease All model walls were kept 0.8 m high, hence the
geocells dimension was adjusted accordingly, as presented
20.6° in Table 5. Details of the arrangement of nine models are
20 shown in Figs. 4–6. Fig. 4 shows the models with different
Shear Stress (kPa)

facing angles. In Fig. 5, the three types of walls are shown,

10
5.2°
0 and the sidewall. Lateral displacement on the wall face’s
0 20 40
Normal Stress (kPa)
Fig. 7. Results of interfacial friction test between model test material and
sand box.
the side glass prevent excess lateral deformation of the box
(Fig. 2). The sand was pluviated into the box through a
screen hopper with a sieve of 2.4 mm opening and a falling
height of the sand device of approximately 105 cm
maintained the relative density of the soil at 62%. Several
dyed layers, 1 cm thick, facilitated visual observation of the
deformation of the layered soil structures. The reinforce-
ment was located at its designated place. The model wall is
shown in Fig. 3.
The variables for study include:
1. prototype wall height—2, 4, and 6 m
2. wall type—gravity type (narrow at top, wide at bottom)
and facing type (same width from top to bottom)
3. facing angle of wall measured from horizontal—701,
801, and 901
4. loading area—surcharge on the backfill only, and
surcharge on both wall facing and backfill
5. reinforced zone—upper zone and lower zone of backfill
i.e., the gravity-type walls with or without reinforcement,
and the facing-type wall with reinforcement. These
arrangements enable the effects of important factors on
the behavior of structure to be investigated.
To minimize the friction on the sidewall of the sand box,
a HDPE sheet was attached to the model material and then
coated with grease. By doing so, the friction angle at the
interface was reduced from an original value of 20.61 to
4.4° 4.41 (Fig. 7). The sheet could also prevent pluviated sand
from entering the gap formed between the model material
60 80 central section was measured at five levels. The finished
model with instrumentation is shown in Fig. 8. Moreover,
the wall was considered to have failed when the lateral
displacement on the wall’s face exceeded 3% of its height.
This is because, at this stage, significant wall deformation
as well as subsidence of the backfill could make the loading
plate tilt.
4. Test results
4.1. Effect of wall’s facing angle
The effect of facing angle can be examined by comparing
model tests on three 2 m-high gravity walls, each with
different wall face angles, 701, 801, and 901, respectively
(see Figs. 4(a)–(c)). As can be seen from Fig. 9, the lateral
displacement of wall increased with surcharge. The steep
facing wall induced more displacement than the gentle-
facing wall, with the maximum value occurring at the top
(Fig. 9(a)). On the other hand, the settlement has the same
trend corresponding to the lateral displacement; with the
maximum value near the wall’s face, as shown in Fig. 9(b).
It was observed also that the sand adjacent to the wall’s
face moved downwards and filled in the gap induced by the
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 63

Fig. 8. The model wall with instrumentation.

Horizontal displacement of the facing Settlement of the backfill

0 0

20
Depth from the Top (cm)

-2
Settlement (cm)

40

-4

60 α=70° (Model No.1) α=70° (Model No.1)

α=80° (Model No.2) α=80° (Model No.2)
α=90° (Model No.3) α=90° (Model No.3)
surcharge ≅ 7 kPa surcharge ≅ 7 kPa
surcharge ≅ 45 kPa surcharge ≅ 45 kPa
80 -6
0 5 10 15 20 25 -60 -40 -20 0
Horizontal Displacement (mm) Distance from the Wall Face (cm)

Fig. 9. Comparison of test results for various facing inclinations (H ¼ 2 m, GW): (a) horizontal displacement of the facing, and (b) settlement of the
backfill.

wall’s movement. Finally, as the position of observation
was moved away from the wall’s face, the settlement
became less.
The failure mode of the gravity-type wall includes
horizontal sliding along the interface of geocell layers with
an overturning of the wall, as the photograph and sketches
of final configuration show in Fig. 10. The reason is that,
due to the steep wall face, the center of gravity of the wall
became closer to the face; thus the wall provided less
resistance to overturning than the gentle-facing wall. When
the wall tilted by surcharge, the center of gravity shifted
even more outward resulting in less resistance and,
eventually, the wall would fail by overturning.
4.2. Effect of loading area
Geocell walls are sometimes subjected to direct loading
on their top. In order to find the effect of the loading area,
two model tests were conducted: Models 2 and 4, both were
2 m-high gravity walls with the same facing angle of 801
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
64 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70

Fig. 10. Photograph and sketches of initial and final facing configurations of a vertical model wall (Model no. 3).

Horizontal displacement of the facing Settlement of the backfill

0 0

-1

20
-2
Depth from the Top (cm)

Settlement (cm)

-3
40
-4

Backfill Backfill
(Model No.2) -5 (Model No.2)
60
Model / Backfill Model / Backfill
(Model No.4) (Model No.4)
surcharge ≅ 7 kPa -6 surcharge 7 kPa
surcharge ≅ 45 kPa surcharge 45 kPa
surcharge ≅ 70 kPa surcharge 70 kPa
80 -7
0 10 20 30 -60 -40 -20 0
Horizontal Displacement (mm) Distance from the Wall Face (cm)

Fig. 11. Comparison of test results for different loading area (H ¼ 2 m, a ¼ 801, GW): (a) horizontal displacement of the facing, and (b) settlement of the
backfill.

(see Figs. 4(b) and (d)), but differ in the loading area.
Model 2 was loaded on the backfill only while Model 4 was
subjected to continuous loading on both the backfill and on
the wall’s face.
The results of the two tests show different failure modes
(Fig. 11). When only the backfill was subjected to loading,
the wall tended to overturn, i.e., the maximum lateral
displacement at the top and the maximum settlement close
to the wall’s face. Nevertheless, when both the wall and the
backfill were under loading, it was more like it failed by
squeezing out (or bulging), shown by the solid curves in
Fig. 11(a). In this case, the maximum lateral displacement
occurred at about 0.3 times the wall height from its top.
Thus, it is obvious that the wall itself not only provided
better resistance to loading than the backfill but also that
the upper zone of the wall induced higher friction
resistance under higher normal stress resulting in less
displacement. As additional loadings were applied,
the loading plate tilted more backwards and induced
more settlement in the back part (Fig. 11(b)), as shown in
Fig. 12.
4.3. Effect of reinforcement
The above results of Models 1–4 are from the testing on
the gravity-type walls of externally stabilized structures.
However, the mechanisms associated with externally
stabilized and internally stabilized structures are different.
For example, the potential failure surface of an externally
stabilized structure is only within the soil mass, without
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 65

Fig. 12. Photograph and sketches of initial and final facing configurations when both wall and backfill were loaded (Model no. 4).

0 0

20 20
Depth from the Top (cm)
Depth from the Top (cm)

40 40

Without reinforcement
(Model No.5) Upper Layers Reinforced
60 60 (Model No.8)
With reinforcement
Lower Layers Reinforced
(Model No.6) (Model No.9)
surcharge ≅ 7.5 kPa surcharge ≅ 7 kPa
surcharge ≅ 45 kPa surcharge ≅ 26.5 kPa
surcharge ≅ 70 kPa surcharge ≅ 62 kPa
80 80
0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30
Horizontal Displacement (mm) Horizontal Displacement (mm)

Fig. 13. Comparison of test results for walls with and without Fig. 14. Displacement of the facing with different reinforcing zones
reinforcement (H ¼ 4 m, a ¼ 701, GW). (H ¼ 6 m, a ¼ 701, FW).

penetrating through the structure. On the other hand, an
internally stabilized structure may have a potential failure
wedge fully or partially within the reinforced zone. To have
a better understanding, the results of Models 5 and 6 are
compared (Fig. 13). The model walls were all 4 m-high
gravity-type walls with same facing angle 701. In Model 5,
there was no reinforcement, whereas Model 6 was
reinforced in the upper zone (see Figs. 5(a) and (b)).
The effect of reinforcement on wall under very small
surcharge is not obvious because of low normal stress and
less friction mobilization. As the surcharge increased, it can
be seen that the maximum lateral displacement was
reduced significantly to as much as 40%. The maximum
displacement occurred at about 0.4 times the wall height
from its top (Fig. 13). This result is similar to the finding of
Pinto et al. (1996) where the reinforced brick wall produced
cracks at mid-height. However, for the reinforced geocell
wall, it showed satisfactory stability with no obvious slip
plane.
4.4. Effect of reinforced zone
The effect of reinforced zone on the behavior of the wall
was examined by using paper, embedded in the upper and
lower zones of the backfill, as reinforcements (Fig. 6). The
models were 6 m-high facing-type walls with face angle of
701. The deformed shapes are shown in Fig. 14. It can be
seen that the wall reinforced in the upper zone (Model 8)
has reduced significantly the lateral deformation in the
upper part of the wall. In this case, the slip plane appeared
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
66 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70

to be bi-linear surrounding the reinforced zone (Fig. 15).
This result is similar to the finding of Wong et al. (1994)
described previously where a two-wedge-type failure was
presented in a reinforced retaining wall.
For the case where the lower zone was reinforced,
displacement in the lower zone was restricted by the
friction between soil and reinforcement. The maximum
displacement occurred at the top and the slip plane
appeared only in the upper zone and seemed incapable to
penetrate through the reinforced zone (Fig. 16).
4.5. Effect of wall type
The two types of walls compared were the gravity type
and the facing type: Model 6 was gravity type and Model 7
was facing type. These walls were both 4m high, of 701 face
angle, and both reinforced in the upper zone. The facing
type is described as having equal width from top to
bottom. Since this type is lighter, it produced more
deformation and settlement than the gravity type
(Fig. 17), and its maximum deformation is at about mid-
height. In addition, this type of structure deformed
dramatically at the verge of failure, with a slip plane
developed clearly along the boundary of the reinforced
zone (Fig. 18). This was apparently different from the
gravity type which was stable without a clear slip plane.
4.6. Relationship between lateral displacement and
surcharge
As described above, the deformation of the wall is a
function of surcharge and the wall type as well. In order to
compare the differences in the development of wall
displacement among various types, the relationship of
normalized horizontal displacement x/H versus normalized
surcharge Q/gH are plotted, in which the symbols x and Q
denote horizontal displacement and surcharge, respec-
tively.
4.6.1. Gravity-type wall
For the gravity type without reinforcement (no. 5), the
result in Fig. 19 shows that the normalized displacement has

Fig. 15. Photograph of a model wall reinforced in the upper zone and sketches of initial and final facing configurations. (Model no. 8).

Fig. 16. Photograph of a model wall reinforced in the lower zone and sketches of initial and final facing configurations. (Model no. 9).
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 67

0 4
LVDT1

LVDT2

Normalized Horizontal Displacement (x/H) , (%)

LVDT3

20 LVDT4
3
LVDT5
Depth from the Top (cm)

40 2

60 GW (Model No.6)
1
FW (Model No.7)

surcharge ≅ 7.5 kPa

surcharge ≅ 26.5 kPa

surcharge ≅ 60 kPa
80
0 10 20 30 40 0
0 2 4 6
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/γH)
Fig. 17. Comparison of the facing displacement for different structure
types (H ¼ 4 m, a ¼ 701, upper layers reinforced). Fig. 19. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a gravity-type wall
without reinforcement (Model no. 5, H ¼ 4 m, a ¼ 701).

4
LVDT1
LVDT2
Normalized Horizontal Displacement (x/H) , (%)

LVDT3

3 LVDT4
LVDT5

Fig. 18. Slip plane developed at the boundary of reinforcing zone

(H ¼ 4 m).
1

increased with the normalized surcharge. Also, the slope of

the curve became steeper as the surcharge increased. The
maximum displacement (0.032H) occurring at the top
represents a tilting failure mode. On the other hand, for
the gravity type with upper zone reinforcement (no. 6), the
trend is not so similar (Fig. 20) since the displacement was
restrained by the reinforced effect in the upper portion. The
maximum displacement, 0.014H, was not at the highest
measuring point LVDT1, instead it occurred at LVDT2.
Moreover, the slopes of the curves were maintained at a
constant level, which is different from the case of no
reinforcement. This implies that more friction between the
reinforcement and the soil was mobilized as surcharge was
increased. Hence, the displacement was so restrained that it
could not increase rapidly. Comparing Figs. 19 and 20, it
can be seen that the reinforcement has reduced lateral
displacement for as much as 50%.
0
0 2 4 6 8
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/γ H)
Fig. 20. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a gravity-type wall with
upper reinforced zone (Model no. 6, H ¼ 4 m, a ¼ 701).
4.6.2. Facing-type wall
The result of facing-type wall can be represented by a
6m-high wall reinforced in the upper zone (no. 8). The
normalized displacement has increased also with the
normalized surcharge (Fig. 21). But due to its being lighter
in weight, the wall was less stable. As shown in Fig. 21, the
slopes of the curves became steep when Q/gH reached a

68
2.5
LVDT1
LVDT2
Normalized Horizontal Displacement (x/H) , (%)
LVDT3
2
LVDT4
LVDT5
1.5
1
0.5
0 materials involved in the model test, and to find the most
0 2
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/γ H)
Fig. 21. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a facing-type wall with
upper reinforced zone (Model no. 8, H ¼ 6 m, a ¼ 701).
value of 5. However, the corresponding maximum value of
x/H is about 1.25%, which means that the structure is still
stable. As for this type of wall with reinforcement in the
lower zone, the behavior of test no. 9 responded similarly.
5. Suggestions for design
Considering the above behavior observed from the
model tests, several suggestions are proposed:
1. The failure mode of gravity-type geocell wall tended to
overturn when subjected to surcharge at its top. This can
be prevented by embedding reinforcements (Fig. 22(a))
or lengthening geocells in the upper portion of backfill
(Fig. 22(b)). It can provide more anchorage to reduce
wall deformation as well as to prevent the wall from
tilting as well. Since the gravity-type wall is wider at the
top than at the bottom, reinforcement is only recom-
mended for the upper zone.
2. To facilitate construction, the wall may be divided into
several zones, each zone having an equal length, as
shown in Fig. 22(c). Alternatively, geocell layers may be
lengthened at a certain depth, to act as reinforcements
and to enhance stability, as shown in Fig. 22(d). The
increase in the length of geocells can be regarded as
providing reinforcements similar to geogrids. The
difference is that geocells have larger and thicker cells
than the grids of geogrids.
3. In the aspect of resisting lateral earth pressure, the
facing-type wall is not as stable as the gravity type. This
is because the width of the facing-type wall does not
vary, hence, providing reinforcement over the full height
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70
of the structure as shown in Fig. 22(e) is recommended.
Moreover, it can be seen that the wall reinforced in the
upper zone (Model 8) could reduce significantly the
lateral deformation in the upper part of the wall. For
the case where the lower zone was reinforced (Model 9),
displacement in the lower zone was restricted by the
friction between soil and reinforcement. Based on above
finding, providing reinforcement as shown in Fig. 22(e)
can be expected to restrain displacement effectively over
the full height of the structure.
6. Conclusions
This study employed model tests of a geocell reinforced
wall to examine the behavior of the structure, including the
deformation on the wall’s face and the settlement of
the backfill. To determine all the characteristics of the
4 6 8
suitable materials, dimensions and manufacturing methods
for geocells, similitude requirements, considering the most
important characteristics relevant to the tensile strength of
the geocells, as well as the seam resistance, were used in the
similarity analysis.
The effect of several variables including the height and
the facing angle of the wall, structure type (gravity and
facing types), loading area, as well as the position of the
reinforcement were studied. The results were compared and
the following conclusions were obtained based on these
tests:
For the gravity-type wall, the deformation at the wall’s
face and the settlement of backfill increased with the
surcharge as well as the face angle. When the surcharge was
applied only to the backfill, the model wall failed in a tilting
mode with the maximum lateral displacement at the top of
the wall and the maximum settlement close to the face.
There was also sliding along reinforcement zones of
different length. On the other hand, when both the wall
and the backfill were under surcharge, settlement in the
backfill caused the wall to fail in a circular failure type. The
facing type, due to its light weight, provided less resistance
that resulted in more deformation and settlement than the
former type.
The reinforcement reduced the deformation of the wall
and the settlement. This is because more frictional
resistance between the interface of the reinforcement and
the soil was mobilized when the surcharge increased. If the
reinforcement was embedded in the lower zone of the
backfill, it effectively restrained the lateral displacement of
the wall, while the wall’s upper part displaced more than
the lower part. Conversely, if the reinforcement was placed
in the upper zone, the lower part displaced more or it
bulged, with the maximum displacement occurring at the
mid-height of the wall. Hence, some suggestions are made
accordingly. For the gravity-type wall, the stability may be
improved by either lengthening the geocell layer or
embedding reinforcement in the upper zone of the backfill.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70 69

Fig. 22. Suggestions for wall design of geocells: (a) reinfoced upper zone, (b) increase in geocells length in upper zone, (c) zones of equal lengths, (d)
increase in geocells length at certain layers, and (e) reinforcement required for the facing-type wall.

For the facing-type wall, it may be necessary to reinforce at References

all depths. In order to facilitate construction, the wall may
be divided into several zones of equal length, or certain
layers may be lengthened, as noted earlier.
The relationship of normalized lateral displacement
versus normalized surcharge for the gravity wall with
reinforcement shows that the slopes of the curves were
maintained at a constant level, which is different from the
case where there was no reinforcement. Nevertheless, the
slopes of the curves became steep when Q/gH reached a
value of 5.0 for both the gravity-type wall with no
reinforcement and the facing-type wall with reinforcement.
This provides the necessary information so that the
structure will remain stable if the surcharge is kept less
than 5gH.
Al Hattamleh, O., Muhunthan, B., 2006. Numerical procedures for
deformation calculations in the reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 24 (1), 52–57.
Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S., Dodge, F.T., 1991. Similarity Methods in
Engineering Dynamics–Theory and Practice of Scale Modeling,
revised ed. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., The Netherlands.
Bathurst, R.J., Walters, D., Vlachopoulos, N., Burgess, P., Allen, T.M.,
2000. Full scale testing of geosynthetic reinforced walls, invited
keynote paper. In: Zornberg, J.G., Christopher, B.R. (Eds.), Proceed-
ings of Geo-Denver 2000, Advances in Transportation and Geoenvir-
onmental Systems using Geosynthetics, ASCE Special Publication No.
103, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp. 201–217.
Bathurst, R.J., Allen, T.M., Walters, D.L., 2005. Reinforcement loads in
geosynthetic walls and the case for a new working stress design
method. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4), 287–322.
 ARTICLE IN PRESS
70 R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 56–70
Cancelli, A., Rimoldi, P., Montanelli, F., 1993. Index and performance
tests for geocells in different applications. In: Cheng, S.C.J. (Ed.),
Geosynthetic Soil Testing Procedures, ASTM STP 1190, pp. 64–75.
Won, M.S., Kim, Y.S, 2007. Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
25(1), 10–22.
El-Emam, M.M., Bathurst, R.J., 2007. Influence of reinforcement
parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil
retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 33–49.
Hong, Y.S., Chen, R.H., Wu, C.S., Chen, J.R., 2005. Shaking table tests
and stability analysis of steep nailed slopes. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 42 (5), 1264–1279.
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K., 2005. A case study of a geosynthetic
reinforced wall with wrap-around facing. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 23 (1), 107–115.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.Y., 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, 359–386.
Nouri, H., Fakher, A., Jones, C.J.F.P., 2006. Development of horizontal
slice method for seismic stability analysis of reinforced slopes and
walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (2), 175–187.
O’Rourke, T.D., Jones, C.J.F.P., 1990. Overview of earth retention
systems: 1970–1990. In: Lambe, P.C., Hansen, L.A. (Eds.), Design and
Performance of Earth Retaining Structures, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Publication No. 25, American Society of Civil Engineers, pp.
22–51.
Park, T., Tan, S.A., 2005. Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls
by the inclusion of short fiber. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4),
348–361.
Pinto, M., Isabel, M., Cousens, T.W., 1996. Geotextile reinforced brick
facing retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14, 449–464.
Racana, N., Gourvès, R., Grédiac, M., 2001. Mechanical behavior of soil
reinforced by geocells. In: Proceedings of the International Symposium
on Earth Reinforcement, Japan. Website: /http://www.sol-solution.fr/
html/publications.htmlS.
Skinner, G.D., Rowe, R.K., 2005. Design and behavior of a geosynthetic
reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding founda-
tion. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (3), 235–260.
Won, M.S., Kim, Y.S., 2007. Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
25 (1), 10–22.
Wong, K.S., Broms, B.B., Chandrasekaran, B., 1994. Failure modes at
model tests of a geotextile reinforced wall. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 13, 475–493.
Yoo, C., Jung, H.S., 2004. Measured behavior of a geosynthetic-
reinforced segmental retaining wall in a tiered configuration. Geotex-
tiles and Geomembranes 22 (5), 359–376.