Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

A data base, statistics and recommendations regarding 171 failed

geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls
Robert M. Koerner*, George R. Koerner
Geosynthetic Institute, 475 Kedron Avenue, Folsom, PA 19033, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Following the introduction of mechanically stabilized earth walls with metallic reinforcement in 1966,
Received 7 January 2012 polymeric reinforced structures (both geotextile and geogrid) followed shortly thereafter. A major item
Accepted 6 March 2013 that accompanied this change in reinforcement type was the nature of the backfill soil. Corrosion of
Available online 8 August 2013
metallic reinforcement was no longer an issue with polymer-related geosynthetics and thus locally
available fine-grained soils were generally used in place of quarried coarse-grained gravel soil. The cost
savings are obvious as are the implications for concerns over inadequate performance. While failures
have occurred in both types of reinforced walls, this paper focuses only on geosynthetic reinforced walls.
This data base of 171 failed mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls with geosynthetic reinforcement
includes 44 cases of excessive deformation and 127 cases of collapse of at least part of the wall. The large
majority are located in North America and in the USA in particular. The main statistical findings are as
follows:

1.96% were private (as opposed to public) financed walls

2.78% were located in North America
3.71% were masonry block faced
4.65% were 4e12 m high
5.91% were geogrid reinforced; the other 9% were geotextile reinforced
6.86% failed in less than four years after their construction
7.61% used silt and/or clay backfill in the reinforced soil zone
8.72% had poor-to-moderate compaction
9.98% were caused by improper design or construction (incidentally, none (0%) were caused
by geosynthetic manufacturing failures)
10. 60% were caused by internal or external water (the remaining 40% were caused by internal
or external soil related issues)

In addition to presenting this statistical data, the paper also presents opinions and recommendations
in several of the above areas particularly those which are felt to be at the core of why so many these
structures are exhibiting performance problems. In general, the critical issues appear to be the following;

fine grained silt and clay soils used for the reinforced zone backfill,

poor placement and compaction of these same fine grained backfill soils,

drainage systems and utilities being located within the reinforced soil zone,

non-existing water control either behind, beneath or above the reinforced soil zone, and

improperly determined and/or assessed design details.

Concern over the situation has prompted the creation of an inspector’s certification program, i.e., the
Geosynthetic Certification Institute’s-Inspector Certification Program (GCI-ICP) expressly for MSE walls,
berms and slopes using geosynthetic reinforcement.
Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: [email protected] (R.M. Koerner).

0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2013.06.001
 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27 21

1. Background Within this total there are 44 cases of excessive deformation and
127 cases of collapse. The excessive deformation cases are indeed
In 1966, H. Vidal of France wrote the first paper on reinforced subjective since the allowable deformation of any given structure
earth, a technique he initiated, developed, patented and promoted generally varies between owner, designer and contractor. It can be,
(Vidal,1966,1969a,1969b,1970). His system used long closely-spaced and often is, a very contentious situation. Sometimes, but certainly
100 mm wide steel strips connected to metallic facing and extending not always, such deformation leads to collapse. That said, the
back into the soil mass so as to provide sufficient frictional anchorage. collapse is often near the top of the wall, however, central and lower
Called Reinforced EarthÒ, its success was (and is) outstanding. Over section collapses have also been observed. Also, the length of
time, the original facing has varied (concrete panels, concrete hexa- collapsed walls varies greatly, i.e., from a few meters to over a
gons, timber, gabions, geocells, etc.) as well as the reinforcement itself hundred meters. During collapse, the facing invariably falls away
(from steel mesh-to-polymeric geotextiles and geogrids). Depending from the reinforcement leaving it (the reinforcement) retaining a
on the facing angle and application, the current MSE designation portion of the reinforced fill soil behind. Of course, for global fail-
incorporates walls, berms and slopes as shown in Fig. 1. Perhaps as ures the entire MSE system is involved in the failure.
many as 150,000 of these mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) While not felt to be statistically relevant, the oldest two failures
structures have been built worldwide (authors estimate). occurred in 1987 and only 19 (11%) failed in the following ten years.
Being a geosynthetic institute, however, our interest (as with Thereafter, failures occurred much more frequently with the peak
this journal) is on MSE systems reinforced with polymeric rein- year being 2009 with 21 (12%) in that year alone.
forcement and not on metallic reinforcement. These polymeric
reinforcement materials consist of various types of geotextiles and 3. Main statistical findings
geogrids and are shown collectively in Fig. 2. It is the performance
of these particular geosynthetic reinforced systems which is the The following ten items were felt to be of paramount interest in
complete focus of this paper. It should be noted that all of the cases this study with the relevant percentages associated with each item
listed in this paper make a facing angle of greater than 70 with the obtained from the 171 case history failures. At the outset, it should
horizontal, thus are classified as walls (or berms) rather than be noted that there are likely other unreported failures that are not
slopes. Berms, are either walls or slopes and are used at both waste included in the data base, thus the statistics are specifically referring
containment facilities and for general embankment construction. only to this data base and may be somewhat biased in this regard.

1. 96% were private (as opposed to public financed) walls

2. Failure modes 2. 78% were located in North America
3. 71% were masonry block faced
While improper performance of any structure or system involving 4. 65% were 4e12 m high
geosynthetics is (or should be) of keen interest to the geosynthetics 5. 91% were geogrid reinforced (the other 9% were geotextile
community, the number of failures of MSE structures has been very reinforced)
large although on the basis of this data base concentrated in North 6. 86% failed in less than four years after their construction
America and in the USA in particular. Our first investigations were in 7. 61% used silt and/or clay backfill in the reinforced soil zone
the 1980’s and within the next ten years we had accumulated data on 8. 72% had poor-to-moderate compaction
26 such failures. Koerner and Soong (2001) subdivided the failures 9. 98% were caused by improper design or construction
into excessive deformation and actual collapse categories as shown in [incidentally, none (0%) were caused by geosynthetic
Fig. 3. At that point we began soliciting information on failures from manufacturing failures]
others and published data on 82-failures via an internal Geosynthetic 10. 60% were caused by internal or external water (the remaining
Institute report; see Koerner and Koerner (2009). These failures have 40% were caused by soil related issues)
now grown to 171 in number and this is the first written paper on the
collected information that is available to the general geosynthetics Each of these ten items will now be described in greater detail.
community. The information on these case histories has been ob-
tained from the following sources: 3.1. Wall ownership

published cases ¼ 56 There were only 7 (4%) of the failed walls owned by public

GSI file cases ¼ 18 federal, state and local agencies and 164 (96%) by private owners.

colleagues cases ¼ 92 Among the private owners the distribution was as follows;

others (internet and brochures) ¼ 5

49 (30%) were housing developments and apartments,

43 (26%) were commercial shipping centers and malls,

38 (23%) were businesses and industrial parks,

31 (19%) were private roads, hospitals and schools, and

3 (2%) were landfill berms.

3.2. Location by continent

While the large majority of the failures were in North America

(almost all being in the USA), there are cases in all parts of the world
as the following indicates;

134 (78%) were in North America,

Fig. 1. Cross section and principal elements of a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)
27 (16%) were in Asia,
wall. (ref. Elias et al., 2001).
6 (4%) were in Europe,
22 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27

Fig. 2. General types of geosynthetic reinforcement used in MSE walls, berms and slopes.

2 (1%) were in South America,
22 (13%) were less than 4 m,

1 (0.5%) was in Africa, and
68 (40%) were from 4 to less than 8 m,

1 (0.5%) was in Oceania.
43 (25%) were from 8 to less than 12 m,

14 (8%) were from 12 to less than 16 m,
3.3. Facing types
10 (6%) were from 16 to less than 20 m, and

14 (8%) were greater than 20 m.
The large majority of facing type failures consisted of modular
concrete blocks. These are also referred in the USA as segmental
retaining walls, or SRW’s. It might be noted that this type of wall 3.5. Type of geosynthetic reinforcement
facing is more readily observable than others insofar as distress is
concerned. That said, the majority of the deformation failures were By far the most common type of reinforcement was geogrids
of this type of facing. The distribution was as follows; which occurred in 156 (91%) of the cases. The remainder were geo-
textile reinforced, i.e., 15 (9%). None were polymer straps or anchors

121 (71%) were modular concrete blocks, although this type of reinforcement is used in some countries.

37 (22%) were welded wire mesh with geogrid backup,

5 (3%) were discrete concrete panels, 3.6. Service lifetime

4 (2%) were wrap-around geosynthetics, and

4 (2%) were timber. The data shows that when failure occurs it does so quite soon after
construction. Interestingly, 8 (5%) of the walls failed during con-
3.4. Maximum height struction before the planned height was reached. The largest number
of failures 71 (42%) were from 1 to 2 years after construction. Service
All of the failed walls deformed or collapsed, in whole or in part, lifetime of the group of 171 failures were as follows;
at their maximum heights. That said, one wall collapsed in three
different locations with repairs being made after each incident. The
44 (25%) were less than 1 year,
most common failure heights were in the 4e8 m range as given in
71 (42%) were 1 to less than 2 years,
the following data;
32 (19%) were 2 to less than 4 years,
 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27 23

Fig. 3. Types of MSE wall failures (GSI photographs).

8 (5%) were 4 to less than 6 years, Unfortunately, there was insufficient soil description in most of the

3 (2%) were 6 to less than 8 years, case histories to define the soil type more rigorously, but the gen-

6 (3%) were 8 to less than 10 years, and eral tendency to use fine-grained soils is apparent.

7 (4%) were greater than 10 years.

3.8. Relative compaction of backfill soils

3.7. Type of backfill soils Optimally a percent compaction or relative density of the
backfill soil in the reinforced soil zone would be preferred over a
Within the reinforced soil zone, all types of soils have been used more qualified assessment but such detail was only available for a
in the 171 failure case histories. As shown in Fig. 4, 68 (39%) were few of the published cases. What was available is a relative
considered to be coarse grained while 103 (61%) were fine grained. compaction ranking of good, moderate or poor. Furthermore, it was
24 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27

reversed this reasoning and perhaps joint responsibility may have

been assigned. The following, however, is our best estimate in this
regard;

118 (69%) were design failures,

50 (29%) were construction failures, and

3 (2%) were facing material (masonry block or timber) failures.

3.10. Basic failure mechanisms

Finally, we grouped the primary failure mechanisms into four

categories; two soil related and two water related. In this regard,
both soil and water related were then considered as being either
Fig. 4. Backfill soils used in 171 (100%) MSE wall failures.
internal or external to the reinforced soil mass. Fig. 5 illustrates
these four individual mechanisms. We emphasize primary since
seen that the “good” compaction was associated with the more many of the failures had multiple mechanisms involved but
granular soils but that was not a consistent finding. The following is without a detailed forensic analysis of each case we made the
what is available for the 171 cases; necessary singular assumption.
In Fig. 5 it is seen that internal instability; e.g., wide spacings,

48 (28%) e were of good compaction, short lengths and low shear strength soil, accounts for 42 (25%)

51 (30%) e were of moderate compaction, and cases, external instability; e.g., poor foundations, sloping exit angles,

72 (42%) e were of poor compaction. excessive surcharge loads, seismicity and low global shear strength
accounts for 26 (15%) cases; internal water; e.g., leaking drainage
systems, broken water mains, and infiltrating or perched water,
3.9. Primary responsibility for the failures accounts for 63 (37%) cases; and external water; e.g., from the
retained zone, tension cracks and elevated water level, accounts for
To discriminate each failure between design or construction was 40 (23%) cases.
difficult but felt to be of prime importance. In this regard, the use of
fine grained backfill soil was considered a design failure since the 4. Most common failure core issues
soil backfill type should be specified by the designer and verified
accordingly, while poor compaction of that same soil was consid- The following five topic areas appear to the authors to be at the
ered a construction failure. Specific situations, however, might have core of most of the 171 MSE wall failures under discussion. Each will

Surcharge

Circular arc
Piecewise linear or global
shear (or compound) shear plane
shear planes
Seismic
short rein. forces
lengths

Large rein.
spacings

α>0

(a) Internal instability 42 (25%) (b) External instability 26 (15%)

Water seepage
Infiltration
Water in
Perched water tension
pressure crack

Pipe or
Inlet leakage

Pressure
pipe breaks Ret. soil
drainage

Elev. Phreatic
surface

(c) Internal water 63 (37%) (d) External water 40 (23%)

Fig. 5. Basic failure mechanisms.
 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27 25

compaction is almost automatic with placement equipment readily

achieving the desired effect. With silts and clays, however,
compaction is more difficult yet well within the state-of-the-
practice. In general, 95% standard Proctor compaction should be
achieved throughout the reinforced soil zone; see Berg et al. (2009),
Colin et al. (2002) and Bernardi et al. (2009). To be noted is that
modified Proctor compaction at such high percentages is excessive
since undesirable deformation of the facing can readily occur.

4.3. Drainage systems located within the reinforced soil zone

It was noted that 25 of the 63 (40%) internal water failures were

“plumbing related”. In this regard, both pressure pipelines and
drainage pipelines with catch basins must be removed from the rein-
forced soil zone. MSE walls, particularly when backfilled with fine
grained soils, invariably move laterally outward and settle vertically
downward. Such settlement can also result in a backward rotation
Fig. 6. MSE Wall section showing drainage geocomposite back drain and outlet system of the structure; see Jewell (1996). Pipelines simply cannot respond
as well as a geomembrane surface waterproofing layer.
to such movements, i.e., they break if pressure related and they pull
apart if drainage related; see Fig. 7 for the latter. The resulting
be briefly explained along with suggested recommendations for discharged water escaping within the reinforced zone is simply
avoidance in the future. unacceptable. Recommended in this regard is to move the drainage
system to behind the reinforced soil zone and furthermore to
4.1. Fine grained soil in reinforced zone backfill couple it with the back and base drains as shown in Fig. 8; see Berg
et al. (2009). In this way all possible water sources (with their
Fig. 4 presented the various types of soils used in the rein- accompanying hydrostatic pressures) are removed from entering
forcement zone of the 171 case history failures. Readily seen is that the reinforced soil zone.
103 (61%) of the failure cases used silt and/or clay soil types. The
reason for use of such soils is felt to be their availability at a low or 4.4. Improper surface water control
even zero cost in comparison to the cost of sands and gravels which
usually have to be imported to the site. The concern over, and It was noted was that 14 of the 40 (35%) external water failures
critical issue of using, such fine grained soils is that they have low to were surface water related. In this regard, the upper surface of the
extremely low hydraulic conductivity. Of course this can be prop- reinforced soil zone should slope backward and away from the face
erly handled by proper design, see Kempton et al. (2000), but often of the wall, recall Fig. 8, and furthermore it should be sealed with a
is not done so. Therefore water within, behind or beneath such a geomembrane or geosynthetic clay liner as shown in Fig. 6; see
reinforced soil zone can mobilize hydrostatic pressures which are Berg et al. (2009), Colin, et al. (2002) and Bernardi et al. (2009). As is
rarely accounted for in the design process. If such fine grained soils commonly the case, when the reinforced soil zone deforms away
are used, they must (in the authors opinion) be used with back and from the retained soil zone, a tension crack is formed between the
base drains so as to route water away from the reinforced soil zone; two zones; see Fig. 3b, upper right photograph. This crack(s) must
see Berg et al. (2009), Colin et al. (2002) and Bernardi et al. (2009). be immediately and continuously filled with soil and joint sealer
This is well within the state-of-the-practice using drainage geo- unless the hydrostatic pressure scenario depicted in Fig. 9 will
composite materials for the back drain and a wide selection of occur.
materials (drainage geocomposites, gravel, soils, pipes, etc.) for the
outlet base drain. In addition, the upper ground surface must be 4.5. Improperly assessed or misunderstood design details
sealed so as not to allow surface water to permeate into the rein-
forced soil zone; see Berg et al. (2009), Colin et al. (2002) and Since the design of MSE structures is usually undertaken using a
Bernardi et al. (2009). Fig. 6 illustrates both of these protection computer code, parametric variations of sensitive variables can be
details when using fine-grained backfills in the reinforced soil zone. readily evaluated. Even further, the failure plane trajectory can be
nicely understood. By this we mean that a piecewise internal fail-
4.2. Poor placement and compaction of fine grained backfill soils ure, e.g., using the Spencer analysis, can be distinguished from a
circular arc external failure, e.g., using the modified Bishop analysis.
It was noted that 123 (72%) of the failure case histories had Currently available computer codes can readily accommodate these
poor-or-moderate compaction. When using sands and gravels, different failure modes.

Fig. 7. Improper location of drainage inlets and related piping within reinforced soil zone and subsequent pipe separation and leakage.
26 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27

Shifted inlet Shifted inlet

Inlet
and piping and piping
and piping

Reinforced Reinforced Reinforced

soil zone soil zone soil zone

Back drain

Base drain

(a) Poor practice for internal drainage (b) Recommended external (c) Recommended external
for surface water structures drainage for surface water drainage for surface water
within reinforced soil zone behind reinforced soil zone coupled with back/base drain

Fig. 8. Shifting of internal drainage systems from within to behind the reinforced soil zone.

As an example, the following parametric variations were per- (a) As reinforcement length shortens, both internal linear and
formed using the ReSSA (3.0) computer code to gauge the sensi- external circular arc failures are negatively affected.
tivity of each of the variables investigated. The following trends (b) As reinforcement spacing increases, internal piecewise linear
were observed. failures are negatively affected.

(a) crack forms, water enters (b) wall deforms; (c) deformations continues;
and pressure is mobilized pressure continues single block dislodges
and drops to toe of wall

(d) overlying blocks (e) blocks progressively drop (f) after the wall facing collapses;
drop accordingly along with gravel and some majority of the MSE mass
backfill soil remains behind

Fig. 9. Modular block wall collapse progression due to hydraulic pressure in tension cracks.
 R.M. Koerner, G.R. Koerner / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 40 (2013) 20e27 27

(c) As the exit angle at the toe of the slope increases, external poor light on everyone involved in the process. Even further it is
circular arc failures become more prevalent. less than helpful for the image of the geosynthetics profession at
(d) As backfill soil shear strength decreases, internal piecewise large.
linear failures become more prevalent.
(e) As water filled tension cracks occur, both internal linear and
external circular types of failures are negatively affected. Acknowledgments
(f) As the phreatic surface in front of and within the backfill soil
increases, external circular arc failures become more prevalent. This paper is made available through financial assistance of the
Members, Affiliated Members and Associated Members of the
Obviously additional variables can be selected for investigation, Geosynthetic Institute (GSI). We sincerely thank them in this re-
all of which give the necessary insight into the behavior of MSE gard. See our website at www.geosynthetic-institute.org for their
structures. identification and contact persons.
In addition, the authors specifically acknowledge the following
5. Summary and recommendations persons who contributed multiple case histories to the data base:
Felix Jaecklin, Dov Leshchinsky, Blaise Fitzpatrick, Steve Wendland,
This paper presents 171 cases of MSE wall failures resulting in Jay McKelvey, Jason Wu and John Wolosick. Thank you!
either excessive deformation or actual collapse. The primary causes
of the failures are felt to be inadequate or improper design and/or
References
construction. The major design inadequacy appears to be the lack of
proper drainage procedures and the placement of “plumbing” and Berg, R., Christopher, B.R., Samtani, N., 2009. Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls
other utilities within the reinforced soil zone. This must be halted and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines. U. S. Depart-
and the shifting of all utilities from out of the reinforced soil zone, ment of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,
p. 668. FHWA-NH1-09-083 and FHWA GEC011.
per Fig. 8, is highly recommended. The major construction in- Bernardi, M., Collin, J.G., Leschinsky, D., 2009. Design Manual for Segmental
adequacy is the use of fine grained silt and clay backfill soils and Retaining Walls, third ed. National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA,
furthermore their inadequate placement and compaction. This p. 281.
Collin, J.G., Berg, R.R., Meyer, M.S., 2002. Segmental Retaining Wall Drainage
leads to hydraulic pressures being mobilized behind or within the
Manual. National Concrete Masonry Association, Herndon, VA, p. 96.
reinforced soil zone and requires the use of back and base drains so Elias, V., Christopher, B.R., Berg, R.R., March 2001. Mechanically Stabilized Earth
as to dissipate the pressures and properly remove the water at the Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA-
front of the wall. NHI-00e043 Report. National Highway Institute, Washington, DC, p. 393.
Geosynthetic Certification Program-Inspectors Certification Program (GCI-ICP) for
Interestingly, is that there are no cases involving inadequate or Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls, Berms and Slopes Using Geo-
improper manufactured geotextile or geogrid products. Yet, the geo- synthetic Reinforcement, available at: www.geosynthetic-institute.org/
synthetics manufacturer is often the first organization challenged icpintro2.htm.
Jewell, R.A., 1996. Soil Reinforcement with Geotextiles. Construction Industry
when excessive deformation or collapse occurs. One other final Research and Information Association (CIRIA) Special Publication 123. Thomas
point to be emphasized is the realization that 164 (96%) of the cases Telford, p. 332.
were in the private sector. Thus it appears that liberties are being Kempton, G.T., Jones, C.J.F.P., Jewell, R.A., Naughton, P.J., 2000. Construction of slopes
using Cohesive fills and new innovative geosynthetic material. In: 2nd Euro-
taken for MSE walls at shopping centers, industrial parks, housing pean Conf. on Geosynthetics, 2. Pation Editore, Bologna, pp. 825e828.
developments, private facility infrastructure projects and the like, Koerner, R.M., Koerner, G.R., 2009. A Data Base and Analysis of Geosynthetic
that are not being taken by public sector (federal, state and local) Reinforced Wall Fabrics. GRI Report #38. GSI Publication, Folsom, PA, p. 195.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.-Y., August 2001. Geosynthetic reinforced segmental
regulatory agencies. The reason(s) for this disparity are conjecture
retaining walls. Journal Geotextiles and Geomembranes 19 (6), 359e386.
(e.g., lack of peer review of plans and specifications, less control ReSSA (3.0). Reinforced and Unreinforced Slope Stability Analysis, Adama Engi-
over backfill soil, lack of inspection during construction, etc.) but neering Inc., Newark, DE.
Vidal, H., 1966. “La terre armée.” Annales de l’Institut Technique du Batiment et des
are most important so as to correct this situation going forward.
Travaux Publics. In: Série Matériaux 30, Supplement Nos. 223e239, Julye
Clearly, authoritative (and regularly updated) codes, guides and August, 1966, pp. 888e938.
practice documents are critical to have and to be implemented Vidal, H., 1969a, United States Patent No. 3,421,326, January 14, 1969.
accordingly. Vidal, H., 1969b. The principal of reinforced Earth. Highway Engineering Record
(282), 1e16.
Whatever the cause, or causes, of this large number of MSE wall Vidal, H., Feb 1970. Reinforced Earth steel retaining wall. Civil Engineering, ASCE 40
failures having geosynthetic reinforcement, the situation sheds a (2), 72e73.