Zornberg (2012) A Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design Using Geosynthetics

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas,Univ Of-At Austin on 11/25/12. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design using Geosynthetics
Jorge G. Zornberg1, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE

1
Professor, The University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX 78705; [email protected]
President, International Geosynthetics Society (IGS)
ABSTRACT: Even though geosynthetics are now a well-established discipline within

geotechnical engineering, ingenuity continues to be significant in projects involving
their use. This is probably because of the ability to tailor the mechanical and hydraulic
properties of geosynthetics in a controlled manner to address design needs in all areas
of geotechnical engineering. This paper focuses on specific advances involving the use
of geosynthetics in a wide range of geotechnical projects. Specifically, this paper
addresses the creative use of geosynthetics in the design of earth dams, resistive
barriers, unsaturated barriers, veneer slopes, coastal protection systems, foundations,
bridge abutments, retaining walls, embankments, and pavements.
INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetics play an important role in geotechnical applications because of their
versatility, cost-effectiveness, ease of installation, and good characterization of their
mechanical and hydraulic properties. Probably because of these many attributes, the
use of geosynthetics has often promoted ingenuity in multiple areas of geotechnical
engineering. This paper discusses 10 (ten) cases of recent applications (or recent
evaluations of pioneering applications) of geosynthetics in geotechnical projects. For
each type of geotechnical project, the following aspects are discussed: (i) some
difficulties in their design, (ii) a creative approach to address the difficulties using
geosynthetics, and (iii) a recent project illustrating the creative use of geosynthetics.
CASE 1: INGENUITY IN EARTH DAM DESIGN

Some Difficulties in the Design of Earth Dams
Filters are both expensive and critical components of large earth dams. The objective
of drains and their associated filters is to lower the phreatic surface within the dam to
prevent water from emerging from the downstream slope, where flow could trigger
erosion that can endanger the integrity of the structure.
The configuration of the filter zones depends on the type of embankment. In a
homogenous dam, the filter is generally placed as a blanket of sand and fine gravel on
the downstream foundation area, extending from the cutoff/core trench boundary to
the edge of the downstream toe. Instead, in a zoned dam the filter is placed between
Page 1
398
Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE 399
the core and the downstream shell zone. A longitudinal chimney drain collects the
intercepted seepage flow and, via one or more transverse drains, conveys the water to
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas,Univ Of-At Austin on 11/25/12. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
the toe drains outside the embankment. Satisfying the filter requirements may be
particularly difficult in projects where the appropriate aggregate sizes cannot be
obtained in sufficient quantities.
A Creative Approach using Geosynthetics: Geotextile Filters
Geotextiles can be used as filters in critical projects such as earth dams. They
constitute a particularly attractive solution in projects where granular material is not
readily available. While there has been significant resistance among dam designers
towards the use of new filter materials such as geotextiles, the design base and
experience in their use continues to grow. For example, a recent re-evaluation of filter
criteria was conducted and confirmed the suitability of using geotextiles as filters in
large earth dams (Giroud 2010).
The recent re-evaluation led to four criteria for geotextile filters: permeability
criterion, retention criterion, porosity criterion, and thickness criterion. Filtration is
governed by filter openings. The characteristics of filter openings are the size, shape,
density (number per unit area) and distribution. The four criteria address three of these
four characteristics: the size, density and distribution. The shape of filter openings is
not addressed in the four criteria, but is likely to be a minor consideration (Giroud
2010). On the other hand, the shape of openings may be a relevant issue in the case of
some woven geotextiles and some other types of man-made filters. Ultimately, the
four proposed criteria for geotextile filters form a coherent set that allows safe design
of geotextile filters.
The Recent Re-evaluation of a Pioneering Project: Valcros Dam, France
The pioneering project described herein, and reevaluated in light of a recently re-
assessment of filter design criteria, is Valcros Dam. This is the first earth dam
designed with geotextile filters. It was constructed in France in 1970 using a geotextile
filter under the rip-rap protecting the upstream slope of the dam. In addition, a
geotextile filter was used in the downstream drain of the dam.
Valcros Dam is a 17 m high homogeneous dam constructed with a silty sand having
30% by mass of particles smaller than 0.075 mm. Adequate sand filter could not be
obtained for the downstream drain, leading to the use of a nonwoven geotextile as the
filter. The construction of the downstream drain of the dam with a geotextile filter is
shown in Fig. 1. The geotextile used in the downstream drain was a needle-punched
nonwoven geotextile made of continuous polyester filaments, with a mass per unit
area of 300 g/m2. The performance of the drain has been satisfactory since its
construction. This can be concluded from: (i) a constant trickle of clean water, (ii) a
flow rate at the drain outlet that has been consistent with the hydraulic conductivity of
the embankment soil, and (iii) no seepage of water ever observed through the
downstream slope (Giroud 2010).
The good condition of the geotextile filter was confirmed using samples of geotextile
removed from the actual filter after 6 and 22 years of completion of
Page 2

400 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STATE OF THE ART AND PRACTICE
construction. In fact, the

clogging was negligible
(only 0.2% of the pore

volume of the
geotextile). The good
performance of the
geotextile filter can be
explained by a recent
reassessment provided
by Giroud (2010). It was
noted that the Valcros
Dam filter was not
designed using criteria
derived directly from the
classical Terzaghi’s
Fig. 1. Construction of the downstream drain of Valcros Dam
(Giroud 1992) filter criteria. Instead,
the geotextile filter was
selected on the basis of limited experimental data available at that time (1970)
involving the use of this geotextile under an experimental embankment constructed on
saturated soft soil. The recent reevaluation of the use of a geotextile filter at Valcros
Dam indicates that the geotextile indeed meets the current criteria for permeability,
porosity, thickness and retention.
CASE 2: INGENUITY IN THE DESIGN OF RESISTIVE BARRIERS

Some Difficulties in the Design of Resistive Barriers
Conventional cover systems for waste containment involve resistive barriers, which
may be particularly expensive when appropriate soils are not locally available. This
includes the availability of topsoil, cover soil, drainage materials, and vegetation
components. Additional costs include their annual operation and maintenance
requirements, loss of revenue due to decreased landfill volume, and detrimental effects
of post-construction settlements. In the case of steep landfill slopes, additional
concerns involving the use of cover soils involve erosion as well as stability along
interfaces with comparatively low interface shear strength.
A Creative Solution by using Geosynthetics: Exposed Geomembranes
Many of the cost- and performance-related concerns associated with the construction
of conventional cover systems can be minimized or eliminated by constructing
exposed geomembrane covers. These covers are particularly suitable for sites where
the design life of the cover is relatively short, where future removal of the cover
system may be required, where the landfill sideslopes are steep, where cover soil
materials are prohibitively expensive, or where the landfill is expected to be expanded
vertically in the future. In addition, the current trend towards the use of “leachate
Page 3

recirculation” or “bioreactor landfills” makes the use of exposed geomembrane covers

a good choice during the period of accelerated settlement of the waste.
Key aspects in the design of exposed geomembrane covers are the assessment of the
geomembrane stresses induced by wind uplift and the anchorage requirements against
wind action. Wind uplift of the geomembrane is a function of the mechanical
properties of the geomembrane, the landfill slope geometry, and the design wind
velocity. Wind uplift design considerations involve assessment of the maximum wind
velocity that an exposed geomembrane can withstand, of the required thickness of a
protective layer that would prevent the geomembrane from being uplifted, of the
tension and strain induced in the geomembrane by wind loads, and of the geometry of
the uplifted geomembrane. Procedures for the analysis of geomembrane wind uplift
have been recently developed (Giroud et al. 1995, Zornberg and Giroud 1997). A
number of exposed geomembrane covers have been designed and constructed using
these procedures (Gleason et al. 2001).
A Recent Project: The Tessman Road Landfill, TX
The Tessman Road Landfill, located near San Antonio (Texas), was designed and
constructed with an exposed geomembrane cover. In order to accommodate the wind
uplift, the geomembrane requires high tensile strength properties. The good
mechanical properties of geomembrane required by the design made it feasible to
mount an array of flexible solar laminate panels. This led to the first installation of a
solar energy cover (Roberts et al. 2009). The solar energy cover was installed during
only a two-month period in early 2009 and is now generating about 120 kW of
renewable solar power (Fig. 2).
The solar power is tied
directly into the existing
“landfill gas to energy”
system. The Tessman
Road Landfill Solar
Energy Cover allows
generation of renewable
energy, creates a
revenue stream, and
reduces maintenance
requirements. The
material selected for the
Tessman Road Landfill
Solar Energy Cover is a
Fig. 2. Aerial view of the exposed geomembrane with arrays of green, 60-mil, fiber-
solar panels at the Tessman Road Landfill (Roberts 2010) reinforced, flexible
polypropylene– based thermoplastic polyolefin product. The product offers high
strength, flexibility, and a relatively low expansion-contraction coefficient.
The flexible solar panels are less than ¼-inch thick and with a surface of about 23
ft2. A total of 30 solar panels are arranged in rectangular sub-arrays. A total of 35 sub-
Page 4

arrays fill about 0.6 acres, leaving room to expand the solar generation capacity over
time. The 1,050 panels were adhered to the exposed geomembrane over a 5.6-acre
project area, with flat areas (benches) separating the tiers. The panels are positioned
parallel to final-grade contours with sideslopes angled about 15q. These panels were
adhered to the geomembrane with an ethylene propylene copolymer designed for use
on both the solar panels and the geomembrane surface. The Tessman Road Landfill
Solar Energy Cover project is a good example of sustainable investment, with a high
benefit-to-cost ratio, relatively low risk and increased energy efficiency.
CASE 3: INGENUITY IN UNSATURATED SOIL COVER DESIGN

Some Concerns in the Design of Unsaturated Soil Cover Systems
Resistive cover systems involve a liner (e.g. a compacted clay layer) constructed with
a low saturated hydraulic conductivity soil (typically 10-9 m/s or less) to reduce basal
percolation. While US regulations require resistive covers, they also allow the use of
alternative cover systems if comparative analyses and/or field demonstrations can
satisfactorily show their equivalence with prescriptive systems. Unsaturated soil
covers are alternative systems that have already been implemented in several high-
profile sites. Evapotranspiration, unsaturated hydraulic conductivity and water storage
are parameters that significantly influence the performance of this system. The
difficulty in adequately quantifying these important parameters has led to concerns
regarding the long term performance of unsaturated soil covers. This has resulted in
post-construction monitoring and in recommendations towards redundant measures
such as additional capillary barrier systems.
A Creative Approach using Geosynthetics: Geotextile Capillary Barriers
The performance of evapotranspirative cover systems has been documented by field
experimental studies (Anderson et al. 1993, Dwyer 1998), and procedures have been
developed for quantitative evaluation of the variables governing their performance
(Khire et al. 2000, Zornberg et al.
16 2003). However, recent studies have
Saturated moisture storage
14 shown that the use of nonwoven
geotextiles in a capillary barrier
Moisture storage, cm
12
Profile 2 moisture storage
10 system provide superior performance
8
than traditional coarse-grained soils
6
Moisture storage for a (Zornberg et al. 2010).
volumetric moisture
content of 25% The good performance of
4
geotextiles as capillary barriers is
2 Profile 1 moisture storage
shown in Fig. 3, which shows the
0 water storage within a clay soil
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
Time, minutes
column as a function of time for
columns involving geotextile and
Fig. 3. Water storage in columns with geotextile
(Profile 1) and granular (Profile 2) capillary granular capillary barriers. This
barriers (McCartney et al. 2005) figure shows that the water storage
Page 5

increases as the infiltration front advances through the soil. Two values of water
storage are shown as reference in the figure: the storage corresponding to a water
content of 25% (the water content associated with free draining of the imposed
impinging flow rate), and the water storage corresponding to saturated conditions.
The water storage curves for Profile 1 (geosynthetic capillary barrier) and Profile 2
(granular capillary barrier) indicate that the clay stores water well in excess of the
value expected from a freely-draining condition. Also, the results show that the
geosynthetic capillary barrier outperformed the granular capillary barrier. In
summary, geotextile capillary barriers provide higher water storage than granular
soils. In addition, they also offer separation and filtration benefits that are necessary
for a good long-term performance of capillary barriers involving granular soils.
A Recent Project: The Rocky Mountain Arsenal, CO
The Rocky Mountain Arsenal (RMA) is a Superfund site located near Denver
(Colorado) that corresponds to one of the most highly contaminated hazardous waste
sites in the US. One of the remediation components at the site involved the design and
construction of alternative covers. The project includes over 400 acres of alternative
covers. The climate in Denver is semiarid, with an average annual precipitation of 396
mm and an average pan evaporation of 1,394 mm. The wettest months of the year are
also the months with the highest pan evaporation, which is appropriate for an
evapotranspirative cover. The Record of Decision (ROD) for this hazardous waste site
required a compliance demonstration to show equivalence of the alternative design
with a prescriptive cover before construction of the final covers. The design and
compliance of the covers at the RMA site are governed by a quantitative percolation
criterion involving a threshold of 1.3 mm/year.
The compliance demonstration at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal involved a field
demonstration, which was complemented with comparative numerical analyses (Kiel
et al. 2002). Four evapotranspirative test covers were constructed on a rolling plain at
the site in the summer of 1998. The instrumentation program involved monitoring of
the basal percolation, precipitation, soil volumetric water content, and overland runoff
in the four test covers. Basal percolation was collected in gravity lysimeters, which
involved a geocomposite underlain by a geomembrane. Rain and snow were
monitored using an all-season rain gauge. Surface water was collected in polyethylene
geomembrane swales constructed around the cover perimeters. Water content
reflectometer (WCR) probes were used to measure volumetric water content profiles.
While the test plots were well instrumented, the equivalent demonstration process
initially focused almost exclusively on the lysimeter measurements. This was because
the goal was that the water flux through site-specific soils under local weather
conditions remains below the threshold of 1.3 mm/year. According to the lysimeter
measurements, all test plots at RMA satisfied the quantitative percolation criterion
over the period 1998-2003 of operation. However, subsequent evaluation of the water
content records revealed that the presence of lysimeters had affected the flow of water
due to the creation of a capillary barrier in the lysimeters. Even though this effect was
not initially identified, the cover design was amended to include a capillary barrier.
Page 6

(a) The final cover design for the

first group of alternative covers
Diverse mixture of
native plants Vegetation constructed at RMA is shown in
Component
Fig. 4. As shown in the figure,
Soil with Organic Unsaturated Soil
the cover includes a
Amendments (0.3 m) Component
(1.22 m) geosynthetic capillary barrier
AZ Soil
Capillary Barrier
(Williams et al. 2010).
Nonwoven geotextile
Component
Biointrusion
Specifically, the final design of
or pea gravel
Chokestone (0 to 80 mm)
Component the first cover constructed at the
Crushed Concrete
(0.41 to 0.46 m)
site includes a nonwoven
Gradefill geotextile over a chokestone
Waste layer (coarse gravel) to form a
capillary break at the bottom
interface of the barrier soil. The
geotextile also helps minimizing
(b)
the migration of soil particles
into the chokestone layer. The
chokestone is underlain by a
biotic barrier consisting of
crushed concrete from a
demolition site. The
performance of the final cover
is currently being monitored. It
may be concluded that
geosynthetic capillary barrier
may act as an essential
Fig. 4: Cross-section of the RMA Covers: (a) Schematic component that contributes to
View; (b) Exposed cut in Shell Cover (Williams et al. the adequate performance of the
2010)
system.
CASE 4: INGENUITY IN VENEER DESIGN

Difficulties in the Design of Veneer Slopes
The design of veneer slopes (e.g. steep cover systems for waste containment facilities)
may pose significant challenges to designers. Considering the normal and shear forces
acting in a control volume along the veneer slope (or infinite slope), and assuming a
Mohr-Coulomb shear strength envelope, the classic expression for the factor of safety
FSu of an unreinforced veneer can be obtained as a function of the soil shear strength
parameters. However, if the slope is comparatively steep or the veneer is
comparatively thick, the designer is left with little options to enhance stability.
A Creative Solution by using Geosynthetics: Anchored Reinforcements
Geosynthetic reinforcement has been used as an alternative to stabilize veneer slopes.
However, cases involving high, steep slopes lead to tensile requirements that are too
Page 7

high and for which reinforcement products do not exist in the market. A recent
alternative involved the use of horizontal geosynthetic reinforcements, anchored in
sound material underlying the soil veneer (Zornberg et al. 2001). In this case, the shear
and normal forces acting on the control volume are defined not only as a function of
the weight of the control volume, but also as a function of the tensile forces that
develop within the reinforcements. In this case, the shear and normal forces needed for
equilibrium of a control volume are defined by a formulation that depends on the
tensile strength of the reinforcement and provides a convenient expression for stability
evaluation of reinforced veneer slopes. Additional aspects that should be accounted for
in the design of reinforced veneer slopes include the evaluation of the pullout
resistance (i.e. embedment length into the underlying mass), assessment of the factor
of safety for surfaces that get partially into the underlying mass, evaluation of
reinforcement vertical spacing, and analysis of seismic stability.
A Recent Project: North Slopes at the OII Superfund Site
A cover reinforced using horizontally placed geogrids was constructed as part of the
final closure of the Operating Industries, Inc. (OII) landfill. In 1986, the 60-hectare
south parcel of the OII landfill was placed on the National Priorities List of Superfund
sites. Beginning in 1996, the design of a final cover system consisting of an alternative
evapotranspirative soil cover was initiated, with construction was carried out
subsequently from 1997 to 2000. Stability criteria required a static factor of safety of
1.5, and acceptable seismically-induced permanent deformations less than 150 mm
under the maximum credible earthquake.
One of the most challenging design and construction features of the project was
related to the North Slope of the landfill. The north slope is located immediately
adjacent to the heavily travelled Pomona freeway (over a distance of about 1400 m),
rises up to 65 m above the freeway, and consisted of slope segments as steep as 1.5:1
(H:V) and up to 30 m high separated by narrow benches. The toe of the North Slope
and the edge of refuse extends up to the freeway. The pre-existing cover on the North
Slope consisted of varying thickness of non-engineered fill materials. The cover
included several areas of sloughing instability, chronic cracking and high level of gas
emissions. The slope was too steep to accommodate a layered final cover system
incorporating geosynthetic components (e.g. geomembranes, GCLs).
After evaluating various alternatives, an evapotranspirative cover stabilized using
geogrid reinforcements was selected as the appropriate cover for the North Slope (Fig.
5). Stability analyses showed that for most available evapotranspirative materials,
compacted to practically achievable levels of relative compaction on a 1.5:1 slope (e.g.
95% of Standard Proctor), the minimum static and seismic stability criteria were not
met. Veneer geogrid reinforcement with horizontally placed geogrids was then
selected as the most appropriate and cost-effective method for stabilizing the North
Slope cover. The veneer reinforcement consisted of polypropylene uniaxial geogrids,
installed at 1.5-m vertical intervals for slopes steeper than 1.8:1, and at 3-m vertical
intervals for slopes between 2:1 and 1.8:1.
Page 8

As shown in Fig. 5, the

Final Grade
geogrid panels are
embedded a minimum of
Geogrid
1.8 m
Reinforcement
0.75 m into the exposed
Evapotranspirative refuse slope face from
cover which the pre-existing
cover had been stripped.
Construction of the North
1.5 m 0.3 – 0.6 m Slope was accomplished in
12 months. Approximately
3
Exposed Refuse 500,000 m of soil and
Anchor Bench 2
Surface 170,000 m of geogrid were
0.75 m placed, with a total area
Fig. 5. Detail of the horizontal reinforcement anchored into exceeding 9.3 hectares. The
solid waste (Zornberg et al. 2001a) covers have shown good
performance since its construction, illustrating that geosynthetic reinforcement led to a
successful approach where many other stabilization alternatives were not feasible.
CASE 5: INGENUITY IN COASTAL PROTECTION SYSTEM DESIGN

Some Concerns in the Design of Coastal Protection Systems
Coastal protection is often achieved through rock armor, or riprap, which involves
large rocks placed at the foot of dunes or cliffs. This approach is generally used in
areas prone to erosion to absorb the wave energy and hold beach material. Although
effective, this solution is unsightly and may be extremely expensive. Also, riprap may
not be effective in storm conditions, and reduces the recreational value of beaches.
A Creative Solution using Geosynthetics: Large Diameter Geotextile Tubes
Coastal protection can be effectively achieved through the use of geotextile tubes
(Lawson 2008). While geotextile tubes have been used for hydraulic and marine
structures since the 1960s, the use of relatively large-diameter geotextile tubes is
comparatively new. They involve the use of strong woven geotextiles as the tube skin
(with no impermeable inner liner). The major advantage of this system is that a large
encapsulated mass, a tubular structure, could be designed directly to meet many
hydraulic and marine stability requirements. Geotextile tubes ranging in diameter from
1.0 m to 6.0 m have been used in hydraulic and marine applications.
Geotextile tubes are laid out and filled hydraulically on site to their required
geometry. Hydraulic fill is pumped into the geotextile tube through specially
manufactured filling ports located at specific intervals along the top of the tube.
During filling, the tube, being permeable, allows the excess water to flow through the
geotextile skin while the retained fill attains a compacted, stable mass within the tube.
For hydraulic and marine applications, the type of fill typically used is sand or a
significant fraction of sand. The reasons for this are that this type of fill can be placed
Page 9

to a good density by hydraulic means, it has good internal shear strength and, once
placed, it does not undergo further consolidation that would change the filled shape of
the geotextile tube (Lawson 2008).

The geotextile skin performs three functions that are critical to the performance of
the filled geotextile tube. First, it should resist (with adequate tensile strength and
stiffness) the mechanical stresses applied during filling and throughout the life of the
units, and must not continue to deform over time. Second, it must have the required
hydraulic properties to retain the sand fill and prevent erosion under a variety of
hydraulic conditions. Finally, it must have adequate durability to maintain working
conditions over the design life of the units.
A Recent Project: Incheon Grand Bridge Project
Geotextile tubes were recently used for the construction of an artificial island at
Incheon Grand Bridge Project, Korea (Lawson 2008, IFAI 2011). The project includes
the construction of a freeway connecting the island that holds the new airport to
mainland Korea (Fig. 6). This bridge is the longest in Korea and the fifth-longest
cable-stayed bridge in the world. An artificial island was planned in order to construct
the freeway viaduct and associated toll gate facilities. This artificial island is to be left
in place once the freeway viaduct is completed, as the area will later be enveloped by a
large land reclamation scheme to build a new high-technology city.
The foundation
conditions where the
artificial island is
located consist of very
soft marine clays to an
approximate depth of
20 m. Also, the tide
range in this area is
high, with a maximum
difference in level of
9.3 m. This results in
exposure of the soft
clay foundation at low
tide and inundation to
around 5 m at high tide.
To address these
Fig. 6. Geotextile tubes for the construction of an artificial island at difficulties, it was
Incheon Grand Bridge Project, Korea (IFAI 2011) decided to construct a
containment dike for the artificial island using geotextile tubes. This approach was
selected over the alternative of using sheet-pile walls, considering the low shear
strength of the soft foundation and the height to which the artificial island would have
to be raised.
The sand fill for the geotextile tubes was brought to the site by barge, mixed with
water, and then pumped hydraulically into the geotextile tubes. The base of the wall
Page 10

has two tubes side by side, with a third tube placed on top. A fourth tube was
subsequently placed to heighten the final system. The performance of the geotextile
tube structure used in this project was studied by Shin et al. (2008). The results show
that the filled tubes underwent very little deformation once filled, confirming the
adequacy of the geotextile tube system.
CASE 6: INGENUITY IN FOUNDATION DESIGN

Some Difficulties in Foundations Design
Foundations on very soft soils are always problematic. However, when the undrained
shear strength is below some 15 kN/m2, even solutions such as stone columns are
inadequate. This is because the horizontal support of the soft soil must equal the
horizontal pressure in the column.
A Creative Approach using Geosynthetics: Geotextile-Encased Columns
High strength geotextiles have been used to
construct Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC),
which serve as foundation elements in very soft
soils such as underconsolidated clays, peats, and
sludge (Fig. 7). The columns are formed by
using a special geotextile that cases granular
material. The geotextile provides radial support
while the casing is strained by ring tensile forces
(Raithel et al. 2005, Alexiew et al. 2011). The
first projects were successfully completed in
Germany in the mid-1990s. Since their
inception, over 30 successful projects have been
completed in many countries including
Germany, Sweden, Holland, Poland and Brazil.
Due to the presence of the geotextile casing, the
soft soil can tolerate very low lateral support.
Fig. 7. View of exposed Geotextile
This is because of the radial supporting effect of
Encased Column (Alexiew et al. 2011) the geotextile casing. The horizontal support
depends in turn on the vertical pressure over the
soft soil, which can be relatively small. To withstand the high ring tensile stresses, the
geotextile casings are manufactured seamlessly. The columns also act as vertical
drains, but the main role of GECs is the load transfer to deep bearing layers. The
GECs are arranged in a regular grid (Alexiew et al. 2011).
The vertical compressive stiffness of the GEC is lower than that of conventional
deep foundation systems. Accordingly, the compacted vertical sand or gravel column
settles under load due to radial outward deformations. The geosynthetic encasement,
and to some extent the surrounding soft soil, provides a confining radial inward
Page 11

resistance, but some radial deformability is allowed. This deformability has been
reported to provide better compatibility with the deformation of soft sols than more
rigid systems. The use of geosynthetic reinforcements placed horizontally on top of

the GECs (e.g. at the base of embankments founded using GECs) has been used to
reduce differential settlements between the columns and the surrounding soil.
A Recent Project: Extension of Dockyards for the new Airbus, Germany
Geotextile Encased Tubes were used as part of the extension of the airplane dockyards
in Hamburg-Finkenwerder for the production of the new Airbus A380. The area
extension was conducted by enclosing a polder with a 2.4 km long dike, which was
subsequently filled to provide an addition of 140 ha. The main problem facing this
project was the construction in very soft soils (undrained shear strength ranging from
0.4 to 10 kPa), with thicknesses ranging from 8 to 14 m. The original design involved
the construction of a 2.5 km long sheet pile wall, driven to a depth of 40 m.
Ultimately, a dike was constructed over a foundation involving installing
approximately 60,000 GECs with a diameter of 80 cm. They were sunk into the
bearing layers to a depth ranging between 4 and 14 m below the base of the dike
footing. This dike is the new main water protection for the airplane dockyard
This project was successfully implemented between 2001 and 2004. As part of the
structural checks on the ground engineering concept, the stability and deformation
predictions were verified by on-site measurements during construction. The
comprehensive instrumentation included horizontal and vertical inclinometers,
settlement indicators and measurement marks, as well as water pressure and pore
water pressure transducers. Most of the measurement instrumentation was designed
for continued monitoring after completion of the dike.
The dike surface was added to offset long-term settlement when much of the
primary settlements were practically complete (after roughly one year). Additional
predictions were conducted to estimate secondary settlements. An evaluation
conducted in 2004 revealed significantly lower secondary settlements than initially
predicted, confirming the soundness of the design involving GECs.
CASE 7: INGENUITY IN BRIDGE ABUTMENT DESIGN

Some Difficulties in the Design of Bridge Abutments
Conventional design of bridge abutments involve the use of a foundation approach to
support the bridge (e.g. using a deep foundation) and a different type of foundation for
the approaching roadway structure (e.g. foundations on grade). The use of two
different foundation types for different components of the abutment has led to
increased construction costs and times. In addition, vehicular traffic may not be
smooth due to the development of a “bump at the bridge” caused by differential
settlements between bridge foundations and approaching roadway structures.
Page 12

A Creative Approach using Geosynthetics: GRS Integral Abutments

A comparatively recent approach involves the use of integral Geosynthetic Reinforced

Soil (GRS) abutments, which support the bridge load by footings placed directly on a
geosynthetic-reinforced wall, eliminating the use of traditional deep foundations
altogether (Zornberg et al. 2001b, Keller and Devin 2003, Wu et al. 2006). Some
additional advantages include their flexibility, and consequently added ability to
withstand differential settlements and seismic loads as well as their ability to alleviate
the bridge “bumps” commonly occurring at the two ends of a bridge supported by
piles. In addition, this approach eliminates the need of excavations specialized drilling
equipment needed for deep foundations, leading to comparatively rapid construction.
A Recent Project: Founders/Meadows Parkway Bridge, CO
A GRS abutment for
bridge support, the
Bridge Deck Concrete Approach Slab Concrete Roadway
19
Founders/Meadows
Girder
Two
Gages 18 Parkway Bridge, was
17
16
constructed on I-25,
29
28 Bridge Foundation
15
14
approximately 20 miles
27
26
25
13 south of downtown
24 12
23
22
21
Two
Gages
11 Denver, CO. This was the
20 10
first major bridge in the
Front GRS Walll
19
18 9
17
16
15
8 US built on footings
14 7
13
12
11
6 supported by a
10
9
8
5
4 Geogrid Layer #
geosynthetic-reinforced
7
6
5
4
3
2
system, eliminating the
3
2
1
1 use of traditional deep
Bedrock foundations altogether
(Fig. 8). Phased
Location A Location B Location C Location D
construction of the almost
9-m high, horseshoe-
Strain Gage Pressure Cell Survey Point Moisture Gage Temperature Gage
shaped abutments, located
Fig. 8. Cross section of the Founders/Meadows Bridge abutment on each side of the
showing the geosynthetic reinforcements and instrumentation
plan (Zornberg et al. 2001b)
highway, began in July
1998 and was completed
twelve months later.
A comprehensive material testing, instrumentation, and monitoring programs were
incorporated into the construction operations. Design procedures, material
characterization programs, and monitoring results from the instrumentation program
are discussed by Abu-Hejleh et al. (2002). Each span of the new bridge is 34.5 m long
and 34.5 m wide, with 20 side-by-side pre-stressed box girders. The new bridge is 13
m longer and 25 m wider than the previous structure, accommodating six traffic lanes
and sidewalks on both sides of the bridge. The bridge is supported by central pier
columns along the middle of the structure, which in turn are supported by a spread
Page 13

footing founded on bedrock at the median of U.S. Interstate 25. Three types of
uniaxial geogrid reinforcements were used in different sections of the wall. The long-
term-design-strength of these reinforcements is 27 kN/m, 11 kN/m, and 6.8 kN/m,

respectively.
Three sections of the GRS system were instrumented to provide information on the
structure movements, soil stresses, geogrid strains, and moisture content during
construction and after opening the structure to traffic. The instrumentation program
included monitoring using survey targets, digital road profiler, pressure cells, strain
gauges, moisture gauges, and temperature gauges. A view of the instrumentation plan
for Phase II is also shown in Fig. 8. The figure shows the presence of the shallow
footing resting on the reinforced soil mass.
Overall, the performance of the Founders/Meadows bridge structure, based on the
monitored behavior, showed excellent short- and long-term performance. Specifically,
the monitored movements were significantly smaller than those expected in design or
allowed by performance requirements. Also, there were no signs of development of
the “bump at the bridge” problem or any structural damage, and post-construction
movements became negligible after an in-service period of 1 year.
CASE 8: INGENUITY IN THE DESIGN OF RETAINING WALLS

Some Concerns in the Design of High Retaining Walls
Flexibility of retaining walls is particularly relevant in the design of high (e.g. over 50
m) systems. This is important for the long-term response, to minimize differential
settlements, and for adequate seismic response. In addition, the design of high
structures using concrete retaining wall systems often requires deep foundations.
Finally, and particularly in high walls, the time and cost requirements imposed by
concrete retaining walls (i.e. formwork, placement of reinforcement bars, curing,
removal of formwork) as well as technical limitations may be excessive.
A Creative Solution using Geosynthetics: Optimized Flexible Wall Systems
Geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls involve the use of continuous geosynthetic
inclusions such as geogrids or geotextiles. The acceptance of geosynthetics in
reinforced soil construction has been triggered by a number of factors, including
aesthetics, reliability, simple construction techniques, good seismic performance, and
the ability to tolerate large deformations without structural distress. That is, the very
nature of geosynthetics in soil reinforcement applications has led to comparatively
flexible systems. Yet, recent advances in the design of geosynthetic-reinforced walls
have led to optimized systems that are particularly suitable for high walls. These
systems include comparatively high tensile strength elements, comparatively low
creep response, and comparatively flexible facing units.
Page 14

A Recent Project: Sikkim Airport, India

An 80 m-high reinforced soil system has been recently constructed for the Sikkim
Airport. The structure is a hybrid wall/slope system constructed in a very hilly road
meandering along river Teesta, in the Himalayas region of India. This structure
possibly constitutes the highest reinforced soil structure in the world built using
geosynthetic reinforcements. Fig. 9 shows the front view and cross section of the
recently constructed structure. The airport will provide connectivity to Gangtok, the
capital of the state of Sikkim, which is nested in the Himalayas and remains often
isolated during the rainy season. Site selection for an airport in this mountainous
region required significant evaluation, as the airport’s runway and apron requires flat
land due to operational considerations. The new airport will be able to handle ATR-72
class of aircrafts. Its runway is 1,700 m long and 30 m wide. Its apron will be able to
park two ATR-72 aircrafts.
Fig. 9. High (80 m) geosynthetic-reinforced wall constructed for the Sikkim Airport: a) Cross-
section, b) Front view (Zannoni 2011)
This innovative earth retention system involves the use of high strength geogrids as
primary soil reinforcement with an ultimate tensile strength of 800 kN/m. The
reinforcement vertical spacing ranges from 1.8 to 2.4 m. In addition, galvanized and
PVC-coated wire mesh panels are used as secondary reinforcement (spaced every 0.6
m). A vegetated slope face is provided in a significant portion of the reinforced soil
system by installing tailored units as fascia elements.
Seismic considerations played a significant role in the selection of the wall system.
Indeed, the structure experienced a magnitude 6.8 earthquake during construction,
with no signs of visible distress after the event. In addition, the selected system
required significantly less stringent considerations regarding its foundation. Finally,
environmental considerations such as the reduced carbon footprint of this alternative
in relation to those involving concrete added to the decision of a geosynthetic-
reinforced system. Locally available backfill material was used throughout the project.
Sikkim is a green valley with rich flora and fauna. Accordingly, the selected
Page 15

reinforced soil structure, with local stone and green fascia, blends well with the
surroundings causing minimum adverse effects on environment.
CASE 9: INGENUITY IN REINFORCED EMBANKMENT DESIGN

Concerns in the Design of Earth Embankments
If fine-grained soils constitute the available backfill material for an engineered
embankment, the engineer is limited to the use of unreinforced systems and,
consequently, comparatively flat slopes. This is because granular soils have been the
preferred backfill material for reinforced soil construction due to their high strength
and ability to prevent development of excess pore water pressures. Stringent
specifications regarding selection of granular backfill are provided, for example, by
the FHWA guidelines (Berg et al. 2009).
A Creative Solution using Geosynthetics: Reinforcements with In-Plane Drainage
A promising approach for the design of reinforced fine-grained soils is to promote
lateral drainage in combination with soil reinforcement. This may be achieved by
using geocomposites with in-plane drainage capabilities or thin layers of granular soil
in combination with the geosynthetic reinforcements. This design approach may even
lead to the elimination of external drainage requirements. The potential use of
permeable inclusions to reinforce poorly draining soils has been documented
(Tatsuoka et al. 1990, Zornberg and Mitchell 1994, Mitchell and Zornberg 1995).
The potential benefits of using marginal soils to construct steepened slopes are
significant and include: (i) reduced cost of structures that would otherwise be
constructed with expensive select backfill; (ii) improved performance of compacted
clay structures that would otherwise be constructed without reinforcements; and (iii)
use of materials, such as nearly saturated cohesive soils and mine wastes, that would
otherwise require disposal. However, the significant benefits of using poorly draining
soils as backfill material can be realized only if a proper design accounts for the
adverse conditions. The adverse conditions and preliminary guidance are identified by
Christopher et al. (1998) for the design of steep slopes using fine-grained soils
The Recent Re-evaluation of a Pioneering Project: Geotextile-Reinforced slope in
Idaho National Forest
A geotextile-reinforced slope designed as part of the widening of US Highway 93
between Salmon, Idaho, and the Montana state line (Barrows and Lofgren 1993). The
reinforced structure is a 1H:1V slope located in Idaho's Salmon National Forest along
Highway 93. Esthetics was an important consideration in the selection of the retaining
structures along scenic Highway 93 (Parfit 1992). The 172 m-long and up to 15.3 m-
high geotextile-reinforced slope is vegetated, causing a minimum environmental
impact to the Salmon National Forest.
The slope was designed using geotextile reinforcements that not only were required
to have adequate tensile strength but were also expected to provide appropriate in-
Page 16

plane drainage capacity to allow dissipation of pore water pressures that could be
generated in the fill. In this way, an additional drainage system was not necessary
even though indigenous soils were used as backfill and groundwater seeping was
expected from the excavation behind the fill. An extensive instrumentation program
was implemented to evaluate its performance.
On-site soil coming from excavation of the road alignment was to be used as backfill
material. Subsurface drilling revealed that the majority of subsurface material on this
project is decomposed granite. Although the project specifications required the use of
material with no more than 15% passing sieve no. 200, internal drainage was a design
concern. This was because of the potential seepage from the fractured rock mass into
the reinforced fill, especially during spring thaw, coupled with the potential crushing
of decomposed granite particles that may reduce the hydraulic conductivity of the fill.
Widening of the original road was achieved by turning the existing 2H:1V
nonreinforced slope into a 1H:1V reinforced slope.
As shown in Fig. 10,
the final design adopted
two geosynthetic
reinforced zones with a
constant reinforcement
spacing of 0.3 m (1 ft).
At the highest cross-
section of the structure,
the reinforced slope has
a total of 50 geotextile
layers. A nonwoven
geotextile was selected
in the upper half of the
slope, while a high
strength composite
geotextile was used in
Fig. 10. Geosynthetic-reinforced slope in the Idaho National Forest,
the lower half. The
illustrating the use of reinforcement with in-plane drainage
capabilities (Zornberg et al. 1997) nonwoven geotextile,
with an ultimate tensile
strength over 20 kN/m, is a polypropylene continuous filament needle punched
nonwoven. The composite geotextile, with an ultimate tensile strength over 100
kN/m, is a polypropylene continuous filament nonwoven geotextile reinforced by a
biaxial network of high-modulus yarns.
The maximum geotextile strains observed during construction and up to eight weeks
following the completion of slope construction are on the order of 0.2%. These are
significantly low strain levels, mainly if we consider that extensometers report global
strains, comparable with the soil strains obtained from inclinometer readings. The
project was revisited in 2010, 17 years after its construction, in order to evaluate its
post-construction behavior. The maximum strain in the geotextiles was measured to be
only of 0.4%, that is, only 0.2% additional time-dependent strain. It is also possible
Page 17

that the post-construction reinforcement strains occurred due to settlement within the
backfill material. The time-dependent strain behavior was found to be approximately
log-linear.
Another means to evaluate the performance of the geotextile-reinforced
embankment involved evaluation to determine the pavement condition index and the
pavement condition rating. To provide a basis for comparison, two other pavement
evaluations were conducted on earth structures of similar height in the same highway.
Among the various retaining wall systems in the project, the pavement over the
geosynthetic-reinforced slope was found to be the one with the highest pavement
condition rating.
CASE 10: INGENUITY IN PAVEMENT DESIGN

Concerns in the Design of Pavements over Expansive Clays
The construction of pavements over expansive clay has often led to poor performance
due to development of longitudinal cracks induced by moisture fluctuations. These
environmental conditions are generally not fully evaluated as part of the design of
pavements, which often focuses only on traffic loading conditions. Yet, volumetric
changes associated with seasonal moisture variations have led to pavement heave
during wet season and shrinkage during dry season.
The mechanisms leading to the development of the classical longitudinal cracks are
expected to be due to tensile stresses induced by flexion of the pavement during
settlements occurred in dry seasons. During the dry season, there is decrease in the
moisture content of the soil in the vicinity of the pavement shoulders. This leads to
settlements in the shoulder area, but not in the vicinity of the central line of the
pavement, where the moisture content remains approximately constant throughout the
dry season. On the other hand, during the wet season, the moisture content in the soil
in the vicinity of the pavement shoulder increases.
A Creative Solution using Geosynthetics: Base Reinforced Pavements on
Expansive Clays
Base reinforcement involves placing a geosynthetic at the bottom or within a base
course to increase the structural or load-carrying capacity of a pavement system. Two
traditional benefits are reported for reinforced pavements: (1) improvement of the
pavement service life, and (2) equivalent pavement performance with a reduced
structural section. A number of studies have been conducted to quantify the
effectiveness of geogrids in pavements (Al-Qadi 1997, Perkins and Ismeik 1997,
Zornberg and Gupta 2010). While field observations point to the good performance of
geosynthetic-reinforced pavements, the actual properties governing the contribution of
geosynthetics to the pavement reinforcement have not been clearly identified. A new
application of basal reinforcement of pavements has been used in Texas with the
purpose of mitigating the development of longitudinal cracks in pavements
constructed over expansive clays.
Page 18

A Recent Project: Low Volume Road over Expansive Clays in Milam County, TX
A project involving the use of geosynthetic reinforcements in a pavement over

expansive clays is the reconstruction of FM 1915 located in Milam County, Texas. In
1996, an extensive network of longitudinal cracks was observed in over a 4 km stretch
of the pavement section. Accordingly, the pavement was reconstructed with 0.25 m of
lime treated subgrade and an asphalt seal coat on top. Due to the presence of
expansive clays, a geogrid was placed at the interface between the base and subgrade.
In order to evaluate the actual effect of the geogrid on the required base course
thickness, two geogrid reinforced sections were constructed. The first section (Section
1) included a 0.20 m-thick base course, while the second section (Section 2) involved
a 0.127 m-thick base course underlain by the same geogrid. In addition, a control
(unreinforced) section was constructed with a 0.20 m-thick base course (Fig. 11).
Fig. 11: Comparison of the performance of pavement sections over expansive clays: (a) Geogrid-
reinforced Section 2; (b) unreinforced control section; (c) Geogrid-reinforced Section 1.
While falling weight deflectometer testing was conducted to quantify the pavement
performance, the clearest evaluation was obtained based on condition surveys and
visual inspection of the pavement. Specifically, the control section was found to
develop significant longitudinal cracks only after a few months of use. On other hand,
the two geogrid-reinforced sections were found to perform well, without any evidence
of longitudinal cracking. Fig. 11 also illustrates the extent of the three experimental
sections and details the performance of the three sections. An important lesson can be
learned from this field experience: geosynthetic reinforcements have prevented the
development of longitudinal cracks over expansive clays while unreinforced sections
over similar clays have shown significant cracking.
Page 19

CONCLUSIONS
Geosynthetics can now be considered a well-established technology within the

portfolio of solutions available for geotechnical engineering projects. Yet, ingenuity
continues to be significant in geotechnical projects that involve their use. This is
probably because of the ability to tailor the mechanical and hydraulic properties in a
controlled manner to satisfy the needs in all areas of geotechnical engineering. This
paper discussed 10 (ten) recent applications or recent evaluations of old applications in
geotechnical projects involving geosynthetics.
The discussion of each application identifies specific difficulties in geotechnical
design, the creative use of geosynthetics to overcome the difficulties, and a specific
case history illustrating the application. Specifically, this paper illustrates the merits of
using geotextiles as filters in earth dams, the use of exposed geomembranes as a
promising approach for resistive covers, the use of geotextiles as capillary barrier in
unsaturated soil covers, the use of anchored geosynthetic reinforcements in
stabilization of steep veneer slopes, the use of geotextile tubes for challenging coastal
protection projects, the use of geotextile encased columns to stabilize very soft
foundation soils, the use of integral geosynthetic-reinforced bridge abutments to
minimize the “bump at the end of the bridge,” the use of geogrids in the design of the
highest reinforced soil wall involving geosynthetics, the use of reinforcements with in-
plane drainage capabilities in the design of steep slopes, and the use of geosynthetic
reinforcements to mitigate the detrimental effect of expansive clays on pavements.
Overall, geosynthetics play an important role in all geotechnical applications
because of their versatility, cost-effectiveness, ease of installation, and good
characterization of their mechanical and hydraulic properties. The creative use of
geosynthetics in geotechnical practice is likely to expand as manufacturers develop
new and improved materials and as engineers/designers develop analysis routines for
new applications.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is thankful to the many designers whose ingenuity involving the use of
geosynthetics led to the success of the ten geotechnical projects described in this
paper. The author is also appreciative to Hossein Roodi, from the University of Texas
at Austin, for his help with the review of this manuscript.
REFERENCES
Abu-Hejleh, N., Zornberg, J.G., Wang, T., and Watcharamonthein, J. (2002). “Monitored
Displacements of Unique Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutment.” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 71-95.
Al-Qadi, I.L., Brandon, T.L., and Bhutta, A. (1997). “Geosynthetic stabilized flexible pavements”,
Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’97, IFAI, Long Beach, California, USA, March 1997, 2, 647-662.
Alexiew, D., Kuster, V., and Assinder, P. (2011). “An Introduction to Ground Improvement using
Geotextile Encased Columns (GEC).” Proceedings of the Fifteenth African Regional Conference on Soil
Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Maputo, Mozambique (CD-ROM).
Anderson, J. E., Nowak, R. S., Ratzlaff, T. D., and Markham, O. D. (1993). “Managing soil water on
Page 20

waste burial sites in arid regions.” Journal of Environmental Quality. 22, 62-69.
Barrows, R.J. and Lofgren, D.C. (1993). Salmon-Lost Trail Pass Highway Idaho Forest Highway 30
Earth Retention Structures Report, Geotechnical Report No. 20-92, FHWA, US Department of
Transportation.
Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R., and Samtani, N.C. (2009). Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth
Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes – Volume II. Publication Number FHWA NHI-10-025, November
2009, 306p.
Christopher, B.R., Zornberg, J.G., and Mitchell, J.K. (1998). “Design Guidance for Reinforced Soil
Structures with Marginal Soil Backfills.” Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia, March, Vol. 2, pp. 797-804.
Dwyer, S.F. (1998). “Alternative Landfill Covers Pass the Test.” Civil Engineering. September, pp. 23–
26.
Giroud, J.P. (1992). “Geosynthetics in Dams: Two Decades of Experience”, Geotechnical Fabrics
Report, Vol. 10, No. 5, July-August 1992, pp. 6-9, and Vol. 10, No. 6, September-October 1992, pp.
22-28.
Giroud, J.P. (2010). “Development of Criteria for Geotextile and Granular Filters.” Proc. 9th
International Conference on Geosynthetics, Guaruja, Brazil (CD ROM).
Giroud, J.P., Pelte, T., and Bathurst, R.J. (1995). “Uplift of geomembranes by wind.” Geosynthetics
International, 2(6): 897-952.
Gleason, M.H., Houlihan, M.F., and Palutis, J.R. (2001). “Exposed geomembrane cover systems:
technology summary.” Proc. Geosynthetics 2001 Conf., Portland: 905-918.
Industrial Fabrics Association International (2011). “Incheon Bridge Project with Geotextile Tubes
Application.” 2010 International Achievement Awards, Geosynthetics Magazine, February, pp. 20-
26.
Keller, G.R., and Devin, S.C. (2003). “Geosynthtetic-reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments.” Journal of the
Transportation Research Board, Volume 1819, pp. 362-368.
Khire, M., Benson, C., and Bosscher, P. (2000). "Capillary Barriers in Semi-Arid and Arid Climates:
Design Variables and the Water Balance," Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 126(8), 695-708.
Kiel, R.E., Chadwick, D. G., Lowrey, J., Mackey, C. V., Greer, L. M. (2002). “Design of
evapotranspirative (ET) covers at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.” Proceedings: SWANA 6th Annual
Landfill Symposium.
Lawson, C.R. (2008). “Geotextile Containment for Hydraulic and Environmental Engineering.”
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 15, no. 6, pp. 384-427.
McCartney, J.S., Kuhn, J.A., and Zornberg, J.G. (2005). “Geosynthetic Drainage Layers in Contact with
Unsaturated Soils.” Proceedings of the Sixteenth International Conference of Soil Mechanics and
Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE), Osaka, Japan, September 12-17, pp. 2301-2305.
Mitchell, J.K., and Zornberg, J.G. (1995). “Reinforced Soil Structures with Poorly Draining Backfills.
Part II: Case Histories and Applications.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 265-307.
Parfit, M. (1992). “The Hard Ride of Route 93.” National Geographic, Vol. 182, No. 6, December
1992, pp. 42-69.
Perkins, S.W., and Ismeik, M. (1997). “A synthesis and evaluation of geosynthetic reinforced base
course layers in flexible pavements: Part II Analytical Work”, Geosynthetic International, 4(6), 605-
621.
Raithel, M., Krichner, A., Schade, C., and Leusink, E. (2005). “Foundation of Constructions on Very
Soft Soil with Geeotextile Encased Columns – State of the Art.” Innovations in Grouting and Soil
Improvement. ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.136, Austin, Texas, January (CD-ROM).
Roberts, M., Alexander, T., and Perera, K. (2009). “A Solar Moment.” MSW Management, October,
pp. 1-6.
Roberts, M. (2010). “Solar Landfills: The Future?” Waste Management World, Vol. 11, No. 6.
Shin, E. C., Oh, Y. I., and Kang, J. K. (2008). “Stability analysis and field monitoring of stacked
geotextile tube for temporary construction platform in Incheon Bridge.” Proceedings of
GeoAmericas 2008, the 1st Pan-American Geosynthetics Conference, Cancun, Mexico, pp. 712–719.
Page 21

Tatsuoka, F., Murata, O., Tateyama, M., Nakamura, K., Tamura, Y., Ling, H.I., Iwasaki, K., and Yamauchi,
H., 1990, “Reinforcing Steep Clay Slopes with a Non-woven Geotextile,” Performance of Reinforced
Soil Structures, Thomas Telford Ltd., pp. 141-146.

Wu, J.T.H., Lee, K.Z.Z., Helwany, S.B., and Ketchart, K. (2006). “Design and Construction Guidelines
for Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge Abutments with a Flexible Facing.” NCHRP Report 559,
Transportation Research Board.
Williams, L., Zornberg, J.G., Dwyer, S., Hoyt, D., and Hargreaves, G. (2010). “Analysis, Modeling,
Design, and Evaluation Monitoring of Alternative Covers at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal.” Proc. Sixth
Intl. Conf. on Environmental Geotechnics, 6ICEG, New Delhi, India, November, Vol. 1, pp. 408-413.
Zanonni, E. (2011). “Geosynthetic Solutions.” Short course on Geosynthetics organized during the 15th
African Conference on Geotechnical Engineering, Maputo, Mozambique.
Zornberg, J.G., Abu-Hejleh, N., and Wang, T. (2001b). “Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Bridge
Abutments.” Geotechnical Fabrics Report, Vol. 19, No. 2, March, pp. 52-55.
Zornberg, J.G., Barrows, R.J., Christopher, B.R., and Wayne, M.H. (1995). "Construction and
Instrumentation of a Highway Slope Reinforced with High Strength Geotextiles". Proc. Geosynthetics
'95, Nashville, TN, Vol. 1, pp. 13-27.
Zornberg, J.G., Bouazza, A., and McCartney, J.S. (2010). “Geosynthetic Capillary Barriers: State-of-the-
Knowledge.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 17, No. 5, October, pp. 273-300.
Zornberg, J.G. and Christopher, B.R. (2007). Geosynthetics. Chapter 37, The Handbook of
Groundwater Eng., Jacques W. Delleur (Editor-in-Chief), CRC Press, Inc., Boca Raton, Florida.
Zornberg, J.G. and Giroud, J.P. (1997). “Uplift of geomembranes by wind - extension of equations.”
Geosynthetics International, 4(2): 187-207.
Zornberg, J.G., and Gupta, R. (2010). “Geosynthetics in Pavements: North American Contributions.”
Theme Speaker Lecture, Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Geosynthetics,
Guarujá, Brazil, May, Vol. 1, pp. 379-400.
Zornberg, J.G. and Kavazanjian, E. (2001). Prediction of the performance of a geogrid-reinforced slope
founded on solid waste. Soils and Foundations, 41(6): 1-16.
Zornberg, J.G., and Mitchell, J.K. (1994). “Reinforced Soil Structures with Poorly Draining Backfills. Part
I: Reinforcement Interactions and Functions,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 103-148.
Zornberg, J.G., Somasundaram, S. and LaFountain, L. (2001a). “Design of Geosynthetic-Reinforced
Veneer Slopes.” Proc. Intl. Symposium on Earth Reinforcement: Landmarks in Earth
Reinforcement, Fukuoka: 305-310.
Zornberg, J.G., LaFountain, L., and Caldwell, J.A. (2003). “Analysis and Design of Evapotranspirative
Cover for Hazardous Waste Landfill.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
129(5), 427-438.
Page 22

Zornberg (2012) A Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design Using Geosynthetics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zornberg (2012) A Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design Using Geosynthetics

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Zornberg (2012) A Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design Using Geosynthetics

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Texas,Univ Of-At Austin on 11/25/12. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Ingenuity in Geotechnical Design using Geosynthetics

Jorge G. Zornberg1, Ph.D., P.E., M. ASCE

ABSTRACT: Even though geosynthetics are now a well-established discipline within

CASE 1: INGENUITY IN EARTH DAM DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

construction. In fact, the

(only 0.2% of the pore

CASE 2: INGENUITY IN THE DESIGN OF RESISTIVE BARRIERS

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

recirculation” or “bioreactor landfills” makes the use of exposed geomembrane covers

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

CASE 3: INGENUITY IN UNSATURATED SOIL COVER DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

(a) The final cover design for the

CASE 4: INGENUITY IN VENEER DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

As shown in Fig. 5, the

CASE 5: INGENUITY IN COASTAL PROTECTION SYSTEM DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

the geotextile tube (Lawson 2008).

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

CASE 6: INGENUITY IN FOUNDATION DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

rigid systems. The use of geosynthetic reinforcements placed horizontally on top of

CASE 7: INGENUITY IN BRIDGE ABUTMENT DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

A Creative Approach using Geosynthetics: GRS Integral Abutments

A comparatively recent approach involves the use of integral Geosynthetic Reinforced

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

term-design-strength of these reinforcements is 27 kN/m, 11 kN/m, and 6.8 kN/m,

CASE 8: INGENUITY IN THE DESIGN OF RETAINING WALLS

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

A Recent Project: Sikkim Airport, India

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

CASE 9: INGENUITY IN REINFORCED EMBANKMENT DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

CASE 10: INGENUITY IN PAVEMENT DESIGN

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

A project involving the use of geosynthetic reinforcements in a pavement over

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geosynthetics can now be considered a well-established technology within the

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

Soil Structures, Thomas Telford Ltd., pp. 141-146.

Geotechnical Engineering State of the Art and Practice

You might also like