Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670

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 backll 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 backll or
the so-called hybrid systems, lateral displacement and settlement were both reduced signicantly. 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
signicantly 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
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 connement vastly improves granular soils shear
strength. This increased soil strength due to connement
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 exibility. 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, ORourke and
Jones (1990) proposed a classication scheme according to
the basic mechanisms of support. The two principal
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 classication 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
ARTICLE IN PRESS
www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem
0266-1144/$ - see front matter r 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.03.001

Corresponding author. Fax: 886 2 23629851.

E-mail address: rongherchen@ntu.edu.tw (R.H. Chen).
the failure mode involved in the system. The wall was
surcharged by a uniformly distributed load on its top. The
observed failure types were a block sliding and an overall
slip of a wedged-shape failure plane. Pinto et al. (1996)
studied the effect of reinforcement on a brick-facing wall.
The wall was arranged with no reinforcement and with
reinforcement of various layers; a layer of reinforcement
per two, three, and four brick layers. The wall was
surcharged at the top until it failed. The failure modes
exhibited two types: the walls with no or inadequate
amount of reinforcement tended to fail by tilting, whereas
the walls with adequate reinforcement presented visible
cracks at its mid-height and then collapsed. Bathurst et al.
(2000) reported large-scale tests on ve geosynthetic
reinforced walls which were constructed with a column of
dry-stacked modular concrete (segmental) units and one
nominal identical wall constructed with a very exible
wrapped face. The said paper presents some measured wall
performance data, numerical simulation results, and
implications of wall performance to current design
methods in North America.
In regard to the geocell reinforced walls, Racana et al.
(2001) employed two kinds of material for constructing a
rigid and a soft reduced-scale walls, respectively, to study
the mechanical characteristics of the walls as well as the
interaction between geocells. The results showed that the
geocell reinforcement can be analyzed as an apparent
cohesion. The wall produced an active block under the
loading area and a shearing zone bounded by the active
block and the passive anchorage which had not been
subjected to any strain. Failure mechanisms were not
different if a soft or a rigid structure was used. However,
the walls studied by Racana et al. (2001) were of constant
height. They did not consider the effect of variables such
as the wall height, the walls facing angle, or the type of
wall, etc.
Recently, considerable interest has been shown in
reinforced walls (Yoo and Jung, 2004; Bathurst et al.,
2005; Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, 2005; Park and Tan,
2005; Skinner and Rowe, 2005; Al Hattamleh and
Muhunthan, 2006; Nouri et al., 2006; El-Emam and
Bathurst, 2007; Won and Kim, 2007). However, little has
been published concerning geocell retaining structures. For
this reason, this study intended to perform model tests on
geocell retaining structures to examine the effect of
variables on the failure mechanism (such as deformation
and settlement characteristics) of the structure. It is hoped
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Nomenclature
Basic SI units are given in parentheses
C
c
coefcient of curvature
C
u
coefcient of uniformity
c cohesion of soil (kPa)
D
r
relative density (%)
D
x
grain diameter at x% passing by weight (mm)
E elastic modulus of soil (kPa)
G
s
specic gravity of soil
g acceleration due to gravity (m/s
2
)
H height of retaining structure (m)
h height of geocell (cm)
I
m
physical quantity of model
I
p
physical quantity of prototype
L length of geocell (cm)
P
a
atmospheric pressure 101.4 kPa
P
j
peel strength of geocell seam (kN/m)
Q surcharge (kPa)
S
f
scaling factor
S
j
seam strength of geocell (kN/m)
T tensile strength of geocell (kN/m)
U
j
split strength of geocell seam (kN/m)
x horizontal displacement (mm)
a angle of wall face (degrees)
f internal frictional angle of soil (degrees)
g soil moist unit weight (kN/m
3
)
g
d,max
soil dry unit weight in the densest state (kN/m
3
)
g
d,min
soil dry unit weight in the loosest state (kN/m
3
)
k angle of slope of backll soil (degrees)
n Poissons ratio of soil
p
i
dimensionless factors
r soil density (kg/m
3
)
s
3
conning pressure (kPa)
Abbreviations
FW facing-type wall
GW gravity-type wall
HDPE high-density polyethylene
LVDT linear variable differential transformer
PE polyethylene
SP poorly graded sands
Table 1
Properties of test sand
Parameters Value
D
10
(mm) 0.18
D
30
(mm) 0.25
D
50
(mm) 0.32
D
60
(mm) 0.36
C
u
2.00
C
c
0.96
G
s
2.66
g
d;max
(kN/m
3
) 16.1
g
d;min
(kN/m
3
) 14.1
Soil classication (USCS) SP
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 57
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 backll was a uniform sub-angular
silica sand containing 99.8% of silica. The properties of the
sand were: D
50
0.32 mm, C
u
2.00, C
c
0.96,
G
s
2.66, g
d,max
16.1 kN/m
3
, g
d,min
14.1 kN/m
3
(see
Table 1). According to the Unied Soil Classication
System, the soil was classied 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 conning pressure increased (Hong et al.,
2005). The relationship among the friction angle of dry
sand, relative density, and conning pressure can be
expressed as
f 30:81 13:38D
r
4:15D
r
log
s
3
P
a

, (1)
where P
a
is the atmospheric pressure (101.4 kPa); D
r
the
relative density (%) and s
3
the conning 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
S
f
I
m
, (2)
where I
p
and I
m
are physical quantities that pertain to the
prototype and the model, respectively, and S
f
is a scaling
factor.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 1. Failure modes of the seam of geocells and samples.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 58
2.2.1. Similarity law of model
The quantities that affect the behavior of a geocell
retaining structure backlled with sandy soil must satisfy
f r; g; E; n; c; f; H; k; a; h; L; T; S
j
; P
j
; U
j
0, (3)
where r is the soil density, g the acceleration due to gravity,
E the elastic modulus of soil, n the Poissons ratio of soil, c
the cohesion of soil, f the internal frictional angle of soil,
H the height of retaining structure, k the angle of slope
of backll soil, a the angle of wall face, h the height of
geocells, L the length of geocells, T the tensile strength of
geocells, S
j
the seam strength of geocells, P
j
the peel
strength of geocell seam, and U
j
the split strength of geocell
seam.
Due to the complicated relationships of the parameters
in the given function, dimension analysis was employed to
simplify the variables into a set of dimensionless terms, i.e.,
the so-called dimensionless p factors
p f p
1
; p
2
; p
3
; . . . ; p
n
. (4)
Choosing r, g, and H as the base of dimensional
analysis, there are twelve p groups that can be
obtained:p
1
E=rgH, p
2
n, p
3
c=rgH, p
4
f,
p
5
k, p
6
a, p
7
h/H, p
8
L/H, p
9
T=rgH
2
,
p
10
S
j
=rgH
2
, p
11
P
j
=rgH
2
, p
12
U
j
=rgH
2
.
When the corresponding dimensionless p factors of
model and prototype are all equal to each other, the model
can be regarded as completely similar to the prototype.
This means that
p
i

m
p
i

p
. (5)
The determination of all the characteristics of the
materials involved in a model test, as required to meet
the similitude requirements, is difcult; therefore, three of
the most important characteristics relevant to the tensile
strength of the geocells, as well as the seam resistance, were
used in the similarity analysis to nd the suitable materials
and the suitable dimensions of geocells. This is because soil
deformation is restrained by cell connement which
depends on the tensile strength of geocells as well as the
seam strength. The related factors to the strength are p
9
,
p
10
, and p
11
.
2.2.2. Similitude material
To decide on the model material, the strength of the
prototype material must be obtained in advance. The
strength of the model material can be determined through
similarity analysis and be used as the reference for choosing
the type of model material. The strength tests on the
prototype material include tensile strength test of geocell
material and tests of junction shear strength, junction peel
strength, and junction split strength (Cancelli et al., 1993).
The three failure modes of a junction are shown in Fig. 1.
The tensile strength obtained from a wide width sample
was 15 kN/m, (based on ASTM 4595-86). The sample for
seam strength test has a width equal to the seam spacing
and a height equal to the cell height. Forces were applied at
the two ends of the sample until the seam failed. The results
of seam strength test were 12.3 kN/m for junction shear
strength, 9.9 kN/m for peel strength, and 11.7 kN/m for
split strength.
Since various wall heights (2 m, 4 m, 6 m) were simulated,
there is a need to search for various suitable materials.
Three kinds of paper were found to meet the requirement:
book binding paper, simile paper, and India paper. The
tensile strength was determined by suspending a single
weight at the bottom of the paper. The results of the tensile
strength are shown in Table 2. The differences in p
9
factors
are 2.5%, 6.6%, and 7.4%, which are considered accep-
table (see Table 3).
The manufacturing method of the seam strength of
model material also depends on the wall height. The test of
seam strength used a single weight attached to the bottom
of the sample until the seam failed. By changing the
seaming method, and using similarity analysis for p
10
, p
11
,
and p
12
factors, suitable seams for various wall heights
were made. For example, the seam of a 2 m-high wall was
made from epoxy and bolts binding the model material.
For a 4 m-high wall, the seam was made from white glue
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Table 2
Strength of prototype and model materials
HDPE Book binding
paper
Simile
paper
India
paper
Tensile
strength
T (kN/m) 14.95 2.45 0.64 0.28
Junction
shear strength
S
j
(kN/m) 12.34 1.90 0.54 0.19
Junction peel
strength
P
j
(kN/m) 9.87 1.52 0.36 0.16
Junction split
strength
U
j
(kN/m) 11.73 1.78 0.51 0.18
Table 3
Comparison of the p-factors for prototype and model materials
p
9
p
10
p
11
p
12
Prototype height 2 m 0.244 0.202 0.161 0.192
4 m 0.061 0.050 0.040 0.048
6 m 0.027 0.022 0.018 0.021
Model (height 0.8 m) Book binding
paper
0.250 0.194 0.155 0.182
Simile paper 0.065 0.055 0.037 0.052
India paper 0.029 0.019 0.016 0.018
Difference in p-factors
(%)
Book binding
paper
2.46 3.96 3.87 5.21
Simile paper 6.56 10.0 7.50 8.33
India paper 7.41 13.6 11.1 14.3
Note: p
9
T/(rgH
2
); p
10
S
j
=rgH
2
; p
11
P
j
=rgH
2
; p
12

U
j
=rgH
2
.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 59
resin and bolts. For a 6 m-high wall, the seam was stuck
together by a double-face velcro. The results on the seam
strength test of model materials are shown in Table 2. The
differences in p
10
, p
11
, and p
12
factors ranged from 3.9% to
14.3% (see Table 3). This was considered acceptable and
thus testing was commenced accordingly.
3. Testing program and procedure
Nine model walls 0.8 m high, with different facing angle,
wall type, and reinforcing zone, were constructed inside a
1.1 m0.345 m1 m (length width height) sand box.
The box includes two 12 mm-thick glass sidewalls, to
observe the deformation of the slope. Steel bars afxed to
ARTICLE IN PRESS
60 cm
110 cm
100
cm
27.5 cm
25
cm
Loading Load cell Air bag
Vertical LVDT
Horizontal LVDT
Geocell retaining
structure model
Backfill
Sand box
LVDT 1
LVDT 2
LVDT 3
LVDT 4
LVDT 5
80
cm
Steel bar
LVDT 6
LVDT 7
LVDT 8
Fig. 2. Setup of instrumentation.
Fig. 3. Photograph of the model wall.
Table 4
Model test arrangements
Model
number
Prototype
height (m)
Structure
type
Backll
reinforcement
Loading
area
Facing
Inclination
(1)
1 2 GW None Backll 70
2 2 GW None Backll 80
3 2 GW None Backll 90
4 2 GW None Backll
and wall
face
80
5 4 GW None Backll 70
6 4 GW Upper layers Backll 70
7 4 FW Upper layers Backll 70
8 6 FW Upper layers Backll 70
9 6 FW Lower layers Backll 70
Note: GW gravity-type wall; FW facing-type wall.
Table 5
Dimensions of prototype and model
Structure
height (m)
Cell height
(cm)
Junction
spacing (cm)
Layers
Prototype 2 25 33 8
Model 0.8 10 13.2 8
Prototype 4 25 33 16
Model 0.8 5 6.6 16
Prototype 6 25 33 24
Model 0.8 3.3 4.4 24
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 60
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 4. Model walls of various facing angle (simulated wall height 2 m): (a) a 701, (b) 801, (c) 901, and (d) 801, loading on backll and wall face.
Fig. 5. Model walls of different structure types (simulated wall height 4 m, a 701). Note: GW gravity-type wall; FW facing-type wall: (a) GW,
without reinforcement, (b) GW, with reinforcement, and (c) FW, with reinforcement.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 61
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 height2, 4, and 6 m
2. wall typegravity type (narrow at top, wide at bottom)
and facing type (same width from top to bottom)
3. facing angle of wall measured from horizontal701,
801, and 901
4. loading areasurcharge on the backll only, and
surcharge on both wall facing and backll
5. reinforced zoneupper zone and lower zone of backll
The content of testing program is shown in Table 4. The
model wall was designed and constructed similar to that of
segmental retaining structures (Koerner and Soong, 2001).
All model walls were kept 0.8 m high, hence the
geocells dimension was adjusted accordingly, as presented
in Table 5. Details of the arrangement of nine models are
shown in Figs. 46. Fig. 4 shows the models with different
facing angles. In Fig. 5, the three types of walls are shown,
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
4.41 (Fig. 7). The sheet could also prevent pluviated sand
from entering the gap formed between the model material
and the sidewall. Lateral displacement on the wall faces
central section was measured at ve levels. The nished
model with instrumentation is shown in Fig. 8. Moreover,
the wall was considered to have failed when the lateral
displacement on the walls face exceeded 3% of its height.
This is because, at this stage, signicant wall deformation
as well as subsidence of the backll could make the loading
plate tilt.
4. Test results
4.1. Effect of walls 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 walls face, as shown in Fig. 9(b).
It was observed also that the sand adjacent to the walls
face moved downwards and lled in the gap induced by the
ARTICLE IN PRESS
5 cells
L=15.6cm
L L
80cm
70
3.3cm
25cm
5 cells
L = 15.6cm
Model No.8 Model No.9
Reinforcements
Reinforcements
25cm
6.6cm 6.6cm
80cm
3.3cm
70
Fig. 6. Model walls with different reinforcing zone (simulated wall height 6 m, a 701): (a) upper layers reinforced, and (b) lower layers reinforced.
0 20 40 60 80
Normal Stress (kPa)
0
10
20
30
S
h
e
a
r

S
t
r
e
s
s

(
k
P
a
)
20.6
5.2
4.4
model test material
HDPE
HDPE / silicone grease
Fig. 7. Results of interfacial friction test between model test material and
sand box.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 62
walls movement. Finally, as the position of observation
was moved away from the walls 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 nal conguration 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 nd 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
Fig. 8. The model wall with instrumentation.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
o
p

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7 kPa
surcharge 45 kPa
=70 (Model No.1)
=80 (Model No.2)
=90 (Model No.3)
Horizontal displacement of the facing
-60 -40 -20 0
Distance from the Wall Face (cm)
-6
-4
-2
0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7 kPa
surcharge 45 kPa
=70 (Model No.1)
=80 (Model No.2)
=90 (Model No.3)
Settlement of the backfill
Fig. 9. Comparison of test results for various facing inclinations (H 2 m, GW): (a) horizontal displacement of the facing, and (b) settlement of the
backll.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 63
(see Figs. 4(b) and (d)), but differ in the loading area.
Model 2 was loaded on the backll only while Model 4 was
subjected to continuous loading on both the backll and on
the walls face.
The results of the two tests show different failure modes
(Fig. 11). When only the backll 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 walls face. Nevertheless, when both the wall and the
backll 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 backll 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 14 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
Fig. 10. Photograph and sketches of initial and nal facing congurations of a vertical model wall (Model no. 3).
0 10 20 30
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
o
p

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7 kPa
Backfill
(Model No.2)
Model / Backfill
(Model No.4)
surcharge 45 kPa
surcharge 70 kPa
Horizontal displacement of the facing
-60 -40 -20 0
Distance from the Wall Face (cm)
-7
-6
-5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
S
e
t
t
l
e
m
e
n
t

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7 kPa
Backfill
(Model No.2)
Model / Backfill
(Model No.4)
surcharge 45 kPa
surcharge 70 kPa
Settlement of the backfill
Fig. 11. Comparison of test results for different loading area (H 2 m, a 801, GW): (a) horizontal displacement of the facing, and (b) settlement of the
backll.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 64
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 signicantly 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 nding 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 backll, 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 signicantly the lateral deformation in the
upper part of the wall. In this case, the slip plane appeared
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 12. Photograph and sketches of initial and nal facing congurations when both wall and backll were loaded (Model no. 4).
0 10 20 30
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
o
p

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7.5 kPa
Without reinforcement
(Model No.5)
With reinforcement
(Model No.6)
surcharge 45 kPa
surcharge 70 kPa
Fig. 13. Comparison of test results for walls with and without
reinforcement (H 4 m, a 701, GW).
0 10 20 30
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
o
p

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7 kPa
Upper Layers Reinforced
(Model No.8)
Lower Layers Reinforced
(Model No.9)
surcharge 26.5 kPa
surcharge 62 kPa
Fig. 14. Displacement of the facing with different reinforcing zones
(H 6 m, a 701, FW).
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 65
to be bi-linear surrounding the reinforced zone (Fig. 15).
This result is similar to the nding 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
ARTICLE IN PRESS
Fig. 15. Photograph of a model wall reinforced in the upper zone and sketches of initial and nal facing congurations. (Model no. 8).
Fig. 16. Photograph of a model wall reinforced in the lower zone and sketches of initial and nal facing congurations. (Model no. 9).
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 66
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%.
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
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 10 20 30 40
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
80
60
40
20
0
D
e
p
t
h

f
r
o
m

t
h
e

T
o
p

(
c
m
)
surcharge 7.5 kPa
GW (Model No.6)
FW (Model No.7)
surcharge 26.5 kPa
surcharge 60 kPa
Fig. 17. Comparison of the facing displacement for different structure
types (H 4 m, a 701, upper layers reinforced).
Fig. 18. Slip plane developed at the boundary of reinforcing zone
(H 4 m).
0
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/H)
0
1
2
3
4
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
x
/
H
)

,

(
%
)
LVDT1
LVDT2
LVDT3
LVDT4
LVDT5
2 4 6
Fig. 19. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a gravity-type wall
without reinforcement (Model no. 5, H 4 m, a 701).
0 4 8
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/ H)
0
1
2
3
4
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
x
/
H
)

,

(
%
)
LVDT1
LVDT2
LVDT3
LVDT4
LVDT5
2 6
Fig. 20. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a gravity-type wall with
upper reinforced zone (Model no. 6, H 4 m, a 701).
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 67
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 backll
(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
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 signicantly 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
nding, 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 walls face and the settlement of
the backll. To determine all the characteristics of the
materials involved in the model test, and to nd the most
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 walls
face and the settlement of backll increased with the
surcharge as well as the face angle. When the surcharge was
applied only to the backll, 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 backll were under surcharge, settlement in the
backll 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
backll, it effectively restrained the lateral displacement of
the wall, while the walls 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 backll.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
0 2 8
Normalized Surcharge Pressure (Q/ H)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
N
o
r
m
a
l
i
z
e
d

H
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
x
/
H
)

,

(
%
)
LVDT1
LVDT2
LVDT3
LVDT4
LVDT5
4 6
Fig. 21. Facing displacement versus surcharge for a facing-type wall with
upper reinforced zone (Model no. 8, H 6 m, a 701).
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 68
For the facing-type wall, it may be necessary to reinforce at
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.
References
Al Hattamleh, O., Muhunthan, B., 2006. Numerical procedures for
deformation calculations in the reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 24 (1), 5257.
Baker, W.E., Westine, P.S., Dodge, F.T., 1991. Similarity Methods in
Engineering DynamicsTheory 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. 201217.
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), 287322.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
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.
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 69
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. 6475.
Won, M.S., Kim, Y.S, 2007. Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
25(1), 1022.
El-Emam, M.M., Bathurst, R.J., 2007. Inuence of reinforcement
parameters on the seismic response of reduced-scale reinforced soil
retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 25 (1), 3349.
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), 12641279.
Kazimierowicz-Frankowska, K., 2005. A case study of a geosynthetic
reinforced wall with wrap-around facing. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 23 (1), 107115.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.Y., 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental
retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19, 359386.
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), 175187.
ORourke, T.D., Jones, C.J.F.P., 1990. Overview of earth retention
systems: 19701990. 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.
2251.
Park, T., Tan, S.A., 2005. Enhanced performance of reinforced soil walls
by the inclusion of short ber. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (4),
348361.
Pinto, M., Isabel, M., Cousens, T.W., 1996. Geotextile reinforced brick
facing retaining walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 14, 449464.
Racana, N., Gourve` s, R., Gre diac, 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), 235260.
Won, M.S., Kim, Y.S., 2007. Internal deformation behavior of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls. Geotextiles and Geomembranes
25 (1), 1022.
Wong, K.S., Broms, B.B., Chandrasekaran, B., 1994. Failure modes at
model tests of a geotextile reinforced wall. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes 13, 475493.
Yoo, C., Jung, H.S., 2004. Measured behavior of a geosynthetic-
reinforced segmental retaining wall in a tiered conguration. Geotex-
tiles and Geomembranes 22 (5), 359376.
ARTICLE IN PRESS
R.H. Chen, Y.M. Chiu / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2008) 5670 70