Under the Stormwater green roof the Wrigley Reservoir · the Wrigley Reservoir Geosynthetic ......

Subscribe at www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

Under thegreen roofin northern California

Revivingthe Wrigley Reservoir

Geosyntheticapplicationsin the new I-35W Bridge

More Q’s-&-A’sfrom the GMA Techline

JUNE/JULY 2010VOLUME 28 NUMBER 3

Subscribe at www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

Stormwater detention using geosynthetics

A new take on sound-barrier walls

Geosynthetic reinforcement

Is it magic?

Building bridges the GRS way

0610GS_Cv1.indd 10610GS_Cv1.indd 1 5/27/10 7:14:42 AM5/27/10 7:14:42 AM

http://www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com



0610GS_Cv1-p11.indd Cv20610GS_Cv1-p11.indd Cv2 5/27/10 7:09:48 AM5/27/10 7:09:48 AM

http://www.agruamerica.com

No matter how you measure performance—best technical support, cost-e ectiveness, product quality, ease of installation, proven reliability or environmental “green” solutions, Strata delivers.

Get started by visiting www.geogrid.com or calling us today at 800-680-7750 or 770-888-6688.You ll gain access to Strata s experience-based answers for all your steep slope, retaining wall, andembankment challenges.

www.geogrid.com Con dence runs deep with Strata.

0610GS_Cv1-p11.indd 10610GS_Cv1-p11.indd 1 5/27/10 7:09:50 AM5/27/10 7:09:50 AM

http://www.geogrid.com

SOMETIMES IT’S WHAT YOU DON’T SEE THAT MATTERS.AND WHAT YOU MAY NOT SEE, OR KNOW, IS HOW SECURE THE CONNECTION IS BETWEEN THE WALL FACE AND THE GEOGRID REINFORCEMENT.

That connection is a critical element in the overall performance of any

segmental retaining wall. With the Mesa® Retaining Wall Systems,

high-strength Tensar® Geogrid is combined with a patented mechanical

connector, providing structural assurance and installation savings that

surpass frictional-based segmental retaining walls.

For more information on how the Mesa Systems can save you time and

money, call 888-828-5007 or visit www.tensarcorp.com/MESA_GEO

©2010, Tensar International Corporation. MESA is a registered trademark. FP-MGEO4C10


http://www.tensarcorp.com/MESA_GEO

www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com 3

JUNE/JULY 2010VOLUME 28 NUMBER 3

On Site 34 ON THE COVER

Geosynthetic

materials are key

components in the

construction of

this underground

stormwater detention

system. See page 34.

42

16

12 Geosynthetics Market Report The U.S. geosynthetics market is poised for a 2010–2011 comeback. By Jeffrey Rasmussen

16 Geosynthetic reinforcement: Is it magic? Do not rely on magic in engineering. By Dov Leshchinsky

26 Geomembrane cover offers multiple efficiencies A retractable geomembrane cover provides odor control and ease of maintenance. By Jim McMahon

34 How geosynthetic materials are used in an underground stormwater detention system By Terence G. Sheridan

42 MSE walls support laterally loaded drilled shafts A new take on sound-barrier walls. By Jie Han, Robert Parsons, Matthew Pierson, and James Brennan



4 Geosynthetics | June July 2010

In Situ

Geosynthetics ISSN #0882 4983, Vol. 28, Number 3 is published bimonthly by Industrial Fabrics

Association International, 1801 County Road B W, Roseville, MN 55113-4061. Periodicals

Postage Paid at Minneapolis, MN and at additional mailing offi ces. Postmaster: send address

changes to Geosynthetics, County Road B W, Roseville, MN 55113-4061. Return Undeliverable

Canadian Addresses to Station A, PO Box 54, Windsor, ON N9A 6J5. Orders and changes

contact: Tiff any Connor, Circulation Promotions Specialist, Geosynthetics , 1801 County Road B W,

Roseville, MN 55113-4061 Phone 800 225 4324 or +1 651 222 2508, fax +1 651 631 9334 e-mail:

[email protected]. 1-year USA $59, Canada and Mexico $69, all other countries $99, payable

in U.S. funds (includes air mail postage). Reprints: call +1 651 225 6917, [email protected]. Back

Issues: call 800 225 4324, www.ifaibookstore.com.

10

Final Inspection

COMING NEXT ISSUE

10

50

6 Editorial EPA’s coal-ash proposal offers further stimulus.

8 From our readers Comments and questions from

www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

9 Only on the website

10 Updates In Geosynthetics, you have read about geotextile

tubes in Europe’s first surf reef and how to build

GRS bridges. Here are updates on those two topics.

50 Panorama Geogrids to the rescue in South Africa

New class of certified geo-professionals

Personnel updates

In Memorium: Bernard Myles

52 Geo-Frontiers Watch Check out the short courses that are available

in Dallas next March.

55 Geosynthetic Materials Association Geosynthetics: The present and perspectives

from Mexico. By Andrew Aho

59 Geosynthetic Institute Purging our industry’s dated

test methods and specs. By Bob Koerner

61 Calendar

63 Ad Index

64 Final Inspection Bernard Myles was my friend By Pete Stevenson

IGS Spotlight | “Working together” | Award-winning landfill cap


mailto:[email protected]


http://www.ifaibookstore.com


http://www.atarfil.com


The official publication of the

Geosynthetic Materials Association

The official publication of the North

American Geosynthetics Society

PUBLISHER

Mary Hennessy | [email protected]

ASSOCIATE PUBLISHER

Susan R. Niemi | [email protected]

EDITOR

Ron Bygness | [email protected]

ART DIRECTOR

Marti Naughton

GRAPHIC DESIGNER

Cathleen Rose

ADVERTISING SALES

Vivian Cowan, Julia Heath, Sarah Hyland, Paul Montag, Mary Mullowney, Sandy Tapp, Elizabeth Welsh | 800 225 4324

EXHIBIT SALES SPECIALIST

Terry Brodsky | [email protected]

CLASSIFIED ADVERTISING SALES/AD DESIGN

Elizabeth Kaestner [email protected]

ADVERTISING ACCOUNT COORDINATOR

Shelly Arman | [email protected]

CIRCULATION MANAGER

Mary Moore | [email protected]

CIRCULATION PROMOTIONS SPECIALIST

Tiff any Connor | [email protected]

INDUSTRIAL FABRICS ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONAL

1801 County Road B W.Roseville, MN 55113-4061, USA+1 651 222 2508 | 800 225 4324 (U.S. and Canada only) | Fax +1 651 631 9334 | www.ifai.com

EDITORIAL

Geosynthetics is an international, bimonthly publication for civil engineers,

contractors and government agencies in need of expert information on

geosynthetic engineering solutions. Geosynthetics presents articles from

field professionals for innovative, exemplary practice.

Ron Bygness

Editor, Geosynthetics magazine

+1 651 225 6988

[email protected]

© 2010 Industrial Fabrics Association International.

All rights reserved.

EDITORIAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE*

Melody A. Adams | Shaw Environmental Inc., USA

Andrew Aho | GMA, USA

Sam R. Allen | TRI/Environmental, USA

Richard J. Bathurst | Royal Military College, Canada

Witty Bindra | Permathene Pty. Ltd., Australia

David A. Carson | U.S. EPA, USA

Daniele A. Cazzuffi | CESI S.p.A., Italy

Oscar R. Couttolenc | GMA, Mexico

Ronald K. Frobel | R.K. Frobel & Associates, USA

Stephan M. Gale | Gale-Tec Engineering Inc., USA

Han-Yong Jeon | INHA University, Korea

Robert M. Koerner | The Geosynthetic Institute, USA

Robert E. Mackey | S2L Inc., USA

Kent von Maubeuge | NAUE GmbH, Germany

Jacek Mlynarek | SAGEOS, Canada

Dhani Narejo | Caro Engineering LLC, USA

Roy J. Nelsen | ErosionControlBlanket.com Inc., USA

Jim Olsta | CETCO, USA

Ian D. Peggs | I-Corp International, USA

Greg N. Richardson | RSG & Associates Inc., USA

Marco A. Sánchez | ML Ingeniería, Mexico

Mark E. Smith | RRD International, USA

L. David Suits | NAGS, USA

Gary L. Willibey | ESP/SKAPS Industries, USA

Aigen Zhao | Syntec Corp., USA

*The Editorial Advisory Committee reviews selected papers,case histories, and technical editorial copy in its areas of expertise. Individual advisors do not review every submission. Statements of fact and opinion are the author’s responsibility alone, and do not imply the viewpoints of Geosynthetics, its Editorial Advisory Committee, editors,or the association.

EPA’s coal-ash proposaloff ers further stimulus

Earlier this year, I was talking with a geosynthetics sales manager

who offered a brief description of the economic landscape: “We

hung in there during 2009 and now we see brighter things this

year and in 2011.” Mark those words, then read our report on the U.S.

geosynthetics marketplace “poised for a comeback” (page 12).

Then in May, this arrived. The U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) finally unleashed its long-awaited, 563-page tome, “Coal

Combustion Residuals–Proposed Rule.”

(In plain English: What are we going to do about the ash byproduct

from coal power plants? Yes, this is the same coal-ash sludge that came

to national attention in December 2008 when it covered millions of

cubic yards of land and water following an impoundment failure in

Kingston, Tenn.)

The EPA’s proposal is lengthy, but here is a key section regarding

coal-ash containment: “… will ensure for the first time that protective

controls, such as liners and groundwater monitoring, are in place at new

landfills to protect groundwater and human health. Existing surface

impoundments will also require liners …”

Of course, we are now in the midst of the back-and-forth, the 90-day

commentary period, and perhaps even legislative action from Congress.

But all of the momentum is in place for what is likely another huge

milestone in the history of geosynthetics.

Talk about stimulus!

There is currently a task group of members from the Geosynthetic

Materials Association (GMA) focused on the EPA’s proposals, working

to ensure that liner language is adopted in its best light. Now would be a

great time to lend this group your professional and financial support.

GMA’s government-relations program has advocated tenaciously

for these regulations. With implementation of the EPA’s proposals,

GMA managing director Andrew Aho said he estimates a potential

economic impact in the neighborhood of $350 million during the next

five years or so.

And that is a very nice neighborhood. Stimulating indeed!










http://www.ifai.com


reinforced concrete retaining wall

Development of fabric form more strength and durability

Institutions: SAENAL tex tech, KOLON, KTDI, FITI, INHA University

Period: June 2009 – May 2011

Reinforcement: geogrid, rebar + anchor block


http://www.mekastone.com


Subgrade enhancement geotextilesEditor’s Note: An August 2009 article briefl y described a new California DOT (Caltrans) guide

for using subgrade enhancement geotextiles. In a comment on this article, the reader poses a

question, which is answered by (a) the author of the Caltrans guide and (b) me.

To read the original article and a link to this guide, search “subgrade enhancement geotextiles”

at: www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com.

Comment: SEG Guide error?From: Wendel B. | Jan. 5, 2010

After reviewing your guide for SEG and having to respond to an engineer

who has used your table for a local project, I wish to draw your attention to

what I believe is an error within the property table. The puncture strength

requirements [seem] way too high for woven geotextile fabrics and I do not

recognize the ASTM number used.

Thank you.

Re: SEG Guide error?From: Ron Bygness, editor, Geosynthetics magazine | Jan. 21, 2010

Thank you for your comment.

Here is a response from Imad Basheer, California DOT/Office of Pavement Design

and author of “Guide for designing: Subgrade enhancement geotextiles”:

The puncture resistance values were based on the AASHTO M288-06 standard

specifications for “Geotextile specifications for highway applications” and the

FHAW publication No. FHWA HI-95-038 and its updated version FHWA NHI-06-

116 titled “Geosynthetic design and construction guidelines.” The puncture

resistance test is given in ASTM D6241.

One further clarification from Geosynthetics editor, Ron Bygness:

Per current AASHTO M288 specifications, ASTM D6241 has replaced D4833.

D4833 is no longer recognized by ASTM Committee D35 on Geosynthetics as an

acceptable geotextile test method.

Please see the GMA (page 51) and Final Inspection (page 56) columns in the

February/March 2010 issue of Geosynthetics magazine for complete details

(http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/issues/28/1).

Seismic performanceEditor’s Note: The August 2009 issue included an article regarding seismic performance of

geocells by Prof. Dov Leshchinsky. A reader off ered a compliment and a request.

To read this original artile by Dr. Leshchinsky, go to: “seismic performance” at:

www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com.

CommentFrom: Slobodan Riger, Alfa Invest | Aug. 28, 2009

Excellent presentation. We will be interested [in] analysis for higher walls, 5-8m,

and the load of highway on the top.

Comments and letters can contain opinions of

individuals who are writing and do not necessarily

reflect the views of Geosynthetics magazine or the

Industrial Fabrics Association International.

Contact us at www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

FROM OUR READERS

Comment on any

article in Geosynthetics at:


OR

Send a letter to the editor at:

[email protected]






http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/issues/28/1



www.geosyntheticsmagazine.comONLY ON THE WEB

Slope anglesEditor’s Note: In the June 2009 issue (page

56), Tim Stark, an engineering professor at

the University of Illinois, answered a question

regarding geosynthetic-lined slopes. Prof.

Ed Kavazanjian’s comments off er further

information on the subject.

Q: Is there a maximum

slope angle for geosynthetic

lined slopes?

A: Yes there is, and the slope angle

should not exceed the lowest

geosynthetic interface friction angle,

δ, of the system. The slope angle

should not exceed δ because this

condition can/will lead to tension

developing in the geosynthetics and

possibly progressive failure of the

slope. Geosynthetics will stretch and

possibly tear under tension because

they are not designed to be under

tension. The only geosynthetic that

is designed to be under tension

are geosynthetic reinforcement

products, such as geogrids and high-

strength geotextiles.

CommentFrom: Ed Kavazanjian, Arizona

State University | Aug. 15, 2009

Tim Stark’s [answer] on restricting the

inclination of a geosynthetic lined slope

to the lowest interface friction angle of

the system only applies to the stability

of veneer slopes where the geometry

appoaches those of an infinite

slope. For instance, there are many

landfills where the lowest interface

friction angle of the side slope is less

than the slope angle. These landfills

are generally filled incrementally, in

horizontal lifts subject to restrictions

on lift height and breadth to

maintain stability. Technically, a bowl-

shaped landfill with an interface friction

angle of zero could be filled in uniform

horizontal lifts maintaining stability.

>>Continued on page 54 >>

BLOGS

Check out all of our blogs by clicking on the GeoBlog button at:


Geosynthetics world hails new coal-ash regulations

The GMA bandwagon is rolling, jump on now

On board with IFAI Expo AsiaAsia 2011

INDUSTRY NEWS

EPA announces plans to regulate coal ashTo read this article, search “regulate coal ash” at:


ASCE inducts new class of certifi ed geo-professionalsTo read this article, search “ASCE inducts” at:


Daniel Selander promoted at Thrace-LINQTo read more, search “Thrace-LINQ” at: www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

Sam Allen receives ASTM awardTo read more, search “ASTM recognizes” at:


BOOKSTORE

“Designer’s Forum: 2004–2008” and “How to buy, design, and build retaining walls”Both of these popular, new compilations are now

available through the IFAI Bookstore:


Click on resources/bookstore










http://www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com/blog


UPDATES

NOV. 2, 2009Surf reef opens after year delay

“Geotextile bags help create Europe’s first artificial surf reef” (geosyntheticsmagazine.com | Nov. 6, 2009):

A £3M ($5M U.S.) artificial reef project expected to open a year ago was finally unveiled Nov. 2. near the seaside coastal village of Boscombe in southern England. Construction had been delayed for months by bad weather.

The reef, which more than doubled in cost since original estimates, was built by New Zealand-based ASR to enhance off-shore waves. It is part of an overall £11M ($17M U.S.) regeneration of the Bournemouth area’s seafront, including improvements at the coastal suburb of Boscombe.

The artificial reef was created to improve surfing conditions by using 55 sand-filled geotextile bags that were strategically placed 225m (740ft) off the coastline.

NOV. 6, 2009Council seeks to recoup reef cost

Europe’s first artificial surf reef incurred an additional cost of more than £250,000 ($386,000 USD) … an audit committee will meet to discuss the reef.

A specialist team from Plymouth University has been enlisted to monitor the reef’s per-formance, to assess whether it is delivering the surfing conditions expected.

NOV. 27, 2009Surf beach huts still unsold

Retro-style “surf pods” in the renovated 1950s Overstrand building, beachside in Boscombe, went on sale for £64,995–£89,995 ($100,000-$140,000 USD).

Despite a flurry of interest at a sales event (May 2009), only eight of the 43 units have been sold.

FEB. 9, 2010Boscombe reef to host first surf contest

The Sorted Surf Festival will feature a number of categories for professional surfers March 20–21. The contest will be a chance to silence critics who say the reef does not work and is in the wrong place.

FEB. 26, 2010Reviews and festival

Plymouth University, home of the UK’s first marine institute, is assessing the quality of the waves and the number of days suitable for surfing.

There has been a mixed response to the reef’s success from surfers who have tried waves … in March, the reef waves are to be featured during The Sorted Surf Festival.

MARCH 22, 2010Reef contest hailed as a success

An estimated 5,000 people turned out for the Sorted Surf Festival, held on the redevel-oped Boscombe seafront during the week-end. Event organizers said they received positive feedback.

APRIL 8, 2010South coast ‘expects busy summer’

A busy Easter holiday weekend offered expectations for a busy summer at this redeveloped coastal area in south England.

Local tourist officials said hotel bookings are up, foreign travel appears to still be down because of the recession, and so-called “staycations” look like a boost for U.K. travel destinations.

The seaside Boscombe area of Bournemouth is banking on those trends, along with its centerpiece surf reef to increase the number of tourists this summer.

MAY 18, 2010Surf reef is only ‘4 out of 10’

A marine expert yesterday confirmed what its critics have been saying for months—Europe’s first artificial surf reef is not working in the way civic chiefs had envisaged.

Mark Davidson from Plymouth University gave the £4 million Boscombe tourist attraction a score of just 4 out of 10 in a scale of its success.

First artifi cial surf reef in Europe

Delays, cost, performance are key issues for reef

A one-year delay in construction, with nearly double the initial cost estimates, and surf-

ing conditions not meeting expectations have all been part of the experience for the first

artificial surfing reef in Europe, which opened earlier this year off the south coast of

England. Geosynthetics referenced this project in its October/November 2008 issue.

The reef, built with 55 sand-filled geotextile bags, is part of an overall beach rejuve-

nation project in Boscombe, Bournemouth, England. As reported in the British media,

here are highlights from the past 8 months:

TOP Geotextile tubes were placed on the

seafloor, creating a “surf reef” off the south coast

of England. BOTTOM Geotextile tube compo-

nents were arranged on a barge in preparation

for installation last year.

>> For more, search tubes at





Building bridges the geosynthetic-reinforced soil wayFrom Defiance County, Ohio, to Yamhill

County, Oregon, building bridges using

geosynthetic-reinforced soil is gaining

popularity for its effectiveness, efficiency,

and time-saving simplicity.

This methodology was first featured in

Geosynthetics in August 2006, with a follow-

up in April 2008 (see links below). Defiance

County Engineer Warren Schlatter and

his crews, with initial assistance from the

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA),

have now constructed 16 such bridges in the

rural northwestern Ohio county.

Now, Bill Gille and his Yamhill County

(Ore.) crews are following in a similar,

successful style. Late last year, the small

Laughlin Road Bridge was reconstructed

in much the same manner as those in

Ohio, by building up the bridge abut-

ments using alternate layers of geotextiles

and compacted fill.

County Engineer Gille described the

process as similar to a layer cake, building

layer upon layer until you get to the top.

“Then you set your bridge on it,” he said.

Yamhill County is located in northwest-

ern Oregon.

Building bridges in this fashion allows

construction in an adaptable, efficient

manner, without pouring tons of con-

crete. It’s also quick. Schlatter described

how his crew built one bridge abutment

in Defiance County in three days. A cast-

in-place structure could require weeks.

http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/

repository/2/2481/0806gs_digitaledition.pdf

http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/0408_f3_

bridges.html

Geosynthetics readers have seen the progress

of GRS bridges in Defiance County, Ohio. Now,

Yamhill County, Oregon, is following suit.

>> For more, search GRS bridges at




http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/repository/2/2481/0806gs_digitaledition.pdf

http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/0408_f3_bridges.html


http://www.naue.com


0610GS_p12-31.indd 120610GS_p12-31.indd 12 5/27/10 7:10:42 AM5/27/10 7:10:42 AM


Unfi nished business

U.S. geosynthetics market is poised for a comeback in 2010-11By Jeff rey Rasmussen

Jeff Rasmussen is market research manager at

the Industrial Fabrics Association International

(IFAI), +1 651 225 6967, [email protected].

Source: IFAI February 2010 Geosynthetic Climate Survey

of geosynthetic suppliers and distributors.

2009 U.S./Canada Geosynthetic Sales

by Type of GeosyntheticFigures are annual and based on mean values.

Geotextiles

34%

Geogrids

22%

Geomembranes

22%

Drainage

composites

4%

Other

18%

>> See the EPA’s announcement

regarding coal-ash disposal:


articles/050410.html

While U.S. geosynthetics manufacturers and distributors assess 2009’s

lackluster performance, they can also look forward to the possibility

of meaningful improvements before the end of this year.

Sales in 2009 were down about 4-5%. However, a slow but steady growth is expected

this year and into 2011.

The decrease in sales and profit margins for U.S. geosynthetics manufactur-

ers and distributors in 2009 was due primarily to the lack of publicly funded

projects, state budget deficits, and the tight credit and lending situation.

The significant downturn in the economy was the driving force behind

tight credit conditions and a widespread lack of publicly funded projects

across the United States. Because of these issues, contractors and state

transportation departments are expected to be cautious in hiring

and spending decisions while they wait for Congress to pass a new

federal transportation bill, which could happen as soon as autumn

2010. Overall, the value of highway, street, and bridge construction

in 2009 was about $84.8 billion, up 3.6% from 2008. It is expected to

reach about $90.5 billion in 2010, up about 7% over 2009.

Uncertainty regarding the multiyear federal transportation reau-

thorization bill and future growth of the overall U.S. economy—and

the availability of stimulus money—will determine if the U.S. market

materializes into a growth year for many U.S. geosynthetics manufacturers,

suppliers, and distributors in 2010. To date, more than 77% of approximately

$50 billion dollars in stimulus funds has been committed to road and bridge

construction projects, but only 4 billion, or 16% of the total funding available, has

been paid to contractors. So, there is much unfinished work ready for completion in

2010. This should bode well for improving the sales and profit margin prospects for

U.S. geosynthetics manufacturers and distributors.

History Geosynthetics is the term used to describe a family of predominantly polymeric

products used to solve civil engineering problems. The term encompasses eight main

product categories: geotextiles, geogrids, geonets, geomembranes, geosynthetic clay

liners, geofoam, geocells (cellular confinement), and geocomposites.

The polymeric nature of the products makes them suitable for use in the ground

where high levels of durability are required. Properly formulated, however, they can

also be used in exposed applications.

The use of geosynthetics has expanded rapidly into nearly all areas of civil, geotechni-

cal, environmental, coastal, and hydraulic construction. Many durable polymers (plastics)




http://www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/050410.html


common to everyday life are found in geo-

synthetics. The most common are polyole-

fins and polyester, although rubber, fiber-

glass, and natural materials are sometimes

used; however, more than 90% of geosyn-

thetics are made of polypropylene.

Since their introduction in the late

1960s, geosynthetics have proven versa-

tile and cost-effective ground modifica-

tion materials. Geosynthetics also have

become essential elements as barriers in

environmental and hydraulic applications.

There are more than 40 manufacturers of

geosynthetics that provide products for

the North American marketplace—more

than half located in the southeastern U.S. or

Texas. The industry provides about 12,000

jobs in the U.S. in manufacturing, fabrica-

tion, distribution, and installation.

A competitive climate Results from IFAI’s geosynthetics man-

ufacturer/distributor climate survey in

February 2010 showed a very competitive

environment for geosynthetics players in

2009, driven largely by the reduced ex-

penditures and budgets in state and local

governments, a continued slow economy

and market growth, and higher raw mate-

rial and energy prices.

Trends and their impact on the 2009

U.S. geosynthetics market, as cited by

manufacturers and distributors in IFAI’s

survey, show a range of difficult challenges.

Increased competition pushed prices lower

by as much as 5-10%, resulting in thinner

profit margins. With the market shrinking

plus industry consolidation, there were

market opportunities for some, but others

reduced operations and became more fo-

cused, or closed their doors altogether.

With less spending on infrastructure

and roads, there were fewer projects, and

sales dropped by as much as 40%. High

raw material prices further reduced sales

and profit margins. With customers also

experiencing tight cash positions, they

Since their introduction

in the late 1960s,

geosynthetics have

proven versatile and

cost-eff ective ground

modifi cation materials.

TenCate Geosynthetics, Pendergrass, Ga., U.S.A.,

received an Outstanding Achievement Award in the

IFAI 2009 IAA competition for a project that managed

the disposal of coal mine slurry waste using geotextile

containers. Photo: TenCate.

>> For more, search market at


were reducing inventory and looking for

faster turnaround times on orders.

An improved outlook While 2009 was a trying time, manufac-

turers and distributors are optimistic that

2010 will yield better results for geosyn-

thetic businesses.

Results in 2009 from IFAI’s geosynthetics

survey show that 77% reported unfavorable

sales growth, 53% kept their employee head

count the same, 18% decreased their head

count by 1-5%, and 18% decreased their

head count by more than 5%. However, 56%

reported that they expect to have favorable

sales in 2010. Only 18% reported that they

expect to have unfavorable sales in 2010.

In the survey, geosynthetic manufac-

turers and distributors cited three main

investments they made in 2009 to help

them fuel growth and overcome industry

challenges. New product introductions led

the way with a 16% share of investments

made. Marketing/sales promotion was the

second-highest investment at 13%. The

third investment, with an 11% share, was

improving manufacturing processes.

Looking ahead, geosynthetics manu-

facturers and distributors are hoping for a

boost in sales from the injection of funds

by the U.S. government’s stimulus program.

In fact, the increase in infrastructure de-

velopment in 2010 is expected to be the

largest investment for repairing the U.S.

road and bridge infrastructure since the

federal highway system in the 1950s.

With the infusion of government funds

in infrastructure development, geosynthet-

ics manufacturers and distributors say they

need to continue their commitment to edu-

cating key market influencers, such as civil

engineers who specify the materials used

for building roads, bridges, reservoirs and

other civil engineering projects. A united

effort on this front will help expand the

number and scope of geosynthetics projects

in the future. G




http://www.gseworld.com


FIGURE 1 An excavator perched on top of an unreinforced sandy

slope during deconstruction of the Indian River Inlet Bridge (IRIB)



Dr. Dov Leshchinsky is a professor

in the Department of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at the

University of Delaware.

Photos courtesy of the author

Geosynthetic reinforced walls and steep slopes: Is it magic?By Dov Leshchinsky

Introduction

The history of humankind indicates that most people,

arguably, embrace magic. Adding exotic ceremonies turns

magic into voodoo.

While magic is based on uncritical thinking, relying on it in

engineering is undesirable because it could lead to overly expensive

structures or, worse, unsafe practice. Hence, designers use rules

stemming from mechanics that follow the laws of physics. Often

these rules are augmented by practice that originates in art.

“Art” here should not be equated with “guessing,” but with

“experience.” As an example, experience may imply maximum

vertical spacing between geosynthetic layers or maximum height

of a reinforced structure. While the mechanics may be applicable

to any spacing or height, experience indicates that large spacing

may lead to poor construction or that tall walls/slopes may undergo

compression leading to unaccounted parasitic loads. Hence, art is

part of engineering but it is not a substitute for mechanics.

In the realm of geosynthetic reinforced walls and steep slopes,

one often realizes that the measured force or, more correctly, strain,

in the reinforcement is far smaller than expected. “Expected” means

predicted by mechanics, i.e., statics.

To an engineer this disagreement could be puzzling. If one adopts

such data uncritically, considering it as a Rosetta stone, one is embracing

magic over mechanics. Adopting unexplained behavior of reinforced

soil essentially shortcuts engineering and may lead to failures.

The purpose of this article is to examine an apparent magic

related to measured reinforcement force. A variation of a cli-

ché could be, “If the magic is published, it becomes a fact.” It is

important to critically review the apparent magic before it becomes

a “fact” adopted in design.

Sandcastles Soil is strong in compression but has virtually no strength in tension.

Geosynthetics are relatively strong in tension. Combining the two

materials produces a composite structure that is strong under both

compression and tension.




Reinforced walls and steep slopes

This means that reinforced earth

structures can be constructed steeply and

act as retaining structures. In fact, dry non-

cemented sand alone cannot be steeper

than its internal angle of friction, typically

less than 40°. Mechanics agree with this

measured limit on steepness of dry sand

slopes. Often this limit is termed “angle

of repose.”

Sandcastles serve as an example in

which—at face value—the rule of angle

of repose is invalidated. Sandcastles are

formed with steep slopes, even negative

batters and overhanging cliffs that are

realistically sculptured. This magical

phenomenon is observed in wet sand, a

cohesionless material and without inclu-

sion of reinforcement.

Those who question the apparent reality

of sandcastles would wonder how one can

sculpt details in unreinforced, cohesion-

less material that is in conflict with basic

mechanics. This apparent conflict with

mechanics is a serious issue, well beyond

child’s play, because mechanics provide the

foundation for geotechnical design.

One more important observation:

Sandcastles collapse when moisture content

increases with high tide or heavy rainfall.

Sandcastles are not durable structures!

Real geotechnical structures A large-scale version of a sandcastle is

depicted in Figures 1 & 1a (pages 16-18).

Shown is an excavator on top of an

unreinforced steep sandy slope during

the deconstruction of the Indian River

Inlet Bridge (IRIB) approach embank-

ments in Sussex County, Delaware. This

photo was taken in 2007, near the loca-

tion where strains in geogrid panels were

measured. The height of the unreinforced

sandy slope is about 6m and its inclination

is roughly 75°. The slope is comprised of

medium sand with less than 5% passing

sieve 200.

Following mechanics and the rule of

angle of repose, this cohesionless slope

cannot remain stable even without the

heavy, constantly vibrating excavator on

its top. We now observe in a large-scale

FIGURE 1A Deconstruction at IRIB: A different

perspective of the excavator working on an

unreinforced sandy slope at the approach

embankments in Sussex County, Delaware.


Looking for a better solution?

For over 130 years, Maccaferri has been controlling the forces of erosion and retaining the earth’s soil. We’ve learned a lot since 1879 and apply that knowledge to every product and every project.

We offer multiple solutions for base and slope reinforcement. Our extensive line of geogrids and turf reinforcement mats provide outstanding performance in reliability and quality at an exceptional value.

Maccaferri strives to provide a cost effective and dependable solution to every project. We can help you save time and money.

Engineering a better solutionwww.maccaferri-usa.com ∙ 800-638-7744


http://www.maccaferri-usa.com



structure the same phenomenon as in

sandcastles—a steep unreinforced slope.

One can attribute the observed

phenomenon in Figures 1/1a to magic.

However, there is a physical explanation

that can dispel the apparent magic. Soil

matrix suction due to moisture in the sand

effectively produces apparent cohesion. This

cohesion keeps sandcastles and even larger

structures stable. In fact, this phenomenon

has been studied using centrifugal model-

ing. Such studies show that increase in the

sand’s moisture content (e.g., due to rainfall)

diminishes the cohesion resulting in col-

lapse of the sandy steep slope.

Imagine that geosynthetic layers had

been installed in the unreinforced slope

in Figures 1/1a. Considering that the

unreinforced slope seems stable, the ex-

pected mobilized strains in the installed

layers would be zero, as it is not needed

for stability.

In reality, perhaps small values of

strains may exist at random locations along

reinforcement layers, likely induced by

compaction and differential movements

of backfill during construction. However,

substantial strains, in the order of 3–5%,

were measured in the geogrids embedded

in the adjacent reinforced sand wall.

Unlike the slope, over which the ex-

cavator operated for a few hours, where

no precipitation occurred, the reinforced

wall was subject to many rainfall events in

its life. These events caused the moisture

content in the sand to increase and the

apparent cohesion to vanish. The dormant

reinforcement was activated, resulting in

substantial mobilization of its strength.

Most importantly, the wall structure

remained intact because its design did not

rely on magic.

The observation related to the Indian

River Bridge is commonly noticed in

construction. It is presented not to warn

designers to ignore cohesion, as this should

be an obvious practice in design of geogrid-

reinforced walls. It is presented to warn

engineers who monitor gages in walls to

realize that smaller-than-expected mea-

sured forces are not necessarily because

the reinforcement is excessively strong

but because an apparent cohesion renders

a stable system where the reinforcement

is dormant.

Any significant increase in moisture

may diminish the apparent cohesion, mak-

ing the small force observation inherently

unreliable in the context of design. What

appears as magic is actually due to appar-

ent cohesion, which is dependent on the

moisture content of the backfill.

Impact of apparent cohesionThe reality observed in Figures 1 & 1a

(pages 16-18) was attributed to an apparent

cohesion of sand.

Using an acceptable slope stability

method, log spiral analysis, one can relate

the apparent cohesion required to render a

“stable” slope, albeit without the surcharge

induced by the excavator.

Table 1 shows the minimum required

cohesion considering different frictional

strengths values for 90° and 75° slopes,

all 6m high having unit weight of 20kN/

m3. The sand at the IRIB was dense and

likely had relevant frictional strength

of about 45°. Hence, for a 75° slope the

required minimum apparent cohesion is

7kPa (about 150psf). Such value of cohe-

sion due to suction in sand is feasible but

TABLE 1 Required cohesion to render stable slope

Slope Unit Weight,

γ [kN/m3]

Internal Angle

of Friction, φ

Cohesion,

c [kPa]Inclination Height [m]

75° 6.0 20 30° >12.1

75° 6.0 20 35° >10.3

75° 6.0 20 40° > 8.6

75° 6.0 20 45° > 7.0

90° 6.0 20 30° >18.0

90° 6.0 20 35° >16.2

90° 6.0 20 40° >14.5

90° 6.0 20 45° >12.9


w w w . C E T C O . c o m

900 Northbrook Drive Suite 320Trevose, PA 19053 215.357.0630For more information on CETCO Contracting Services visit www.cetco.com/ccs

CETCO CONTRACTING SERVICES

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL CONTRACTING IN:Waste ContainmentRemediationCivil/GeotechnicalSediment RemediationReinforced EarthWater roo n Erosion ControlStormwater ana ementHydraulicsGreenroofsSustaina le esi n

CETCO Contracting Services is a true turn-key provider, offering a full range of geo-environmental contracting services, design-build construction and value engineering around the world. Our experience spans all types of geosynthetic materials and some of the most challenging contracting jobs, making CETCO Contracting Services a true single source provider.


http://www.cetco.com/ccs


should be considered completely unreliable

and ignored in design.

While Table 1 indicates significant

effect of slope angle, even for a vertical

slope the required apparent cohesion is

feasible. Refer to Figure 2 for an example

of unbraced vertical cut, roughly 2m high,

in moist, unreinforced sand. For a 2m cut,

the required cohesion for stability is about

4.3kPa (about 90psf).

It is no wonder that some geotechnical

engineers consider cohesion as “the inven-

tion of the devil” (i.e., a little cohesion can

make even a sandy, steep slope stable). Its

unreliability, however, can lead to a disaster

if one depends on it.

Fortunately, the alternative to apparent

cohesion is geosynthetic reinforcement.

It has an equivalent impact to cohesion;

however, this manmade material is pre-

dictable, reliable, durable, and easy to

integrate into existing geotechnical analy-

sis. Unlike apparent cohesion, there is

no magic with geosynthetics, just sound

geotechnical engineering.

Apparent cohesion in sand may sound

oxymoronic. When using the term “cohe-

sionless soil,” one will typically refer to sand

as a good example. Cohesion existence

in “cohesionless” soils is a result of soil

matrix suction, which is often associated

with capillary suction.

Soil matrix suction is a subset of soil

physics and soil mechanics. Its effects on

soil behavior (e.g., compaction, strength)

can be significant. In fact, behavior of

unsaturated soils is an important emerg-

ing research area. In general, due to its

surface tension, water molecules in the

interparticle voids bond the soil grains at

their interface with the air that is present

in the voids and where menisci develop—

see Figure 3.

The smaller the grain size, the greater

the bonding or apparent cohesion. For

example, suction effects on uniformly

graded gravel would be negligible while

the effects on well-graded gravel could be

significant. Saturation or complete dryness

causes loss of this bond. Increase in moisture

content causes rapid loss of cohesion.

Even a small amount of fines in sand

can result in measurable cohesion. In the

context of reinforced walls and slopes, the

research on the behavior of unsaturated

soils may lead to better interpretation of

field data. However, one doubts if it will

lead to a change in design methodologies

as this apparent cohesion is an unreliable

long-term parameter.

Conclusions Design should produce structures that are

safe and economical for a set life span.

Often, field measurements indicate that

the load in geosynthetic reinforcement

used in constructed walls and slopes is

significantly smaller than predicted in

design. One well-known element in design

that contributes to overestimation of load is

a significant underestimate of the backfill’s

frictional strength. That is, tan(φ) used

in design is typically as low as half when

compared with the actual value.

FIGURE 3 Soil Matrix: Solid particles and voids filled

with water and air (interparticle forces generated by

suction are illustrated by vectors).

FIGURE 2 Deconstruction at IRIB: Vertical cut in moist

unreinforced sand.



For more than 25 years, Typar® Geotextiles have been used in paved and unpavedroads and surfaces, drainages, waste handling systems, erosion control and landfillsto separate and reinforce, while filtering soil particles and letting water pass freely.Now we’ve moved into another dimension with new Typar® Geocells, a cellularconfinement system excellent for sediment and erosion control, flood control andsoil stabilization.

All Typar Geotextiles:

• Are manufactured of long-lasting, continuous filament, polypropylene nonwovenfor superior uniformity.

• Reduce construction time through durability and ease of installation.

• Reduce maintenance costs through proven performance and toughness over time.

• Offer excellent tensile strength and tear and puncture resistance.

• Come in a variety of widths, lengths, weights and styles to suit your needs.

Tough Over Time, Typar Geotextiles help preserve the original design and thedesign life of the system.

Typar Geotextiles meet the requirements of AASHTO M288 specifications.

For more info, call 800-441-2760or visit www.TyparGeotextiles.com

Typar® is a registered trademark of Fiberweb, Inc.

The proven way to save time and money on construction projects.

T O U G H O V E R T I M E

GEOCELLS

NEW


http://www.TyparGeotextiles.com


Such a discrepancy produces the

impression that the mechanics used in

design are overly conservative, contrib-

uting to the mystery of low-measured

loads. Apparent cohesion, however, has

much greater impact than friction. While

apparent cohesion stabilizes in a similar

process as geosynthetics, it is unreliable

and should not be used in design.

The presence of cohesion may lead to

smaller loads measured in reinforcement.

Such apparent cohesion can be formed by

soil matrix suction. Ignoring suction in

interpreting measured field data may lead

to unsafe conclusions. It replaces mechan-

ics with magic because it ignores cohesion

but attributes its impact to the presence

of geosynthetics.

Unfortunately, it is daunting to

consider suction in interpreting field

measured data. Furthermore, suction will

vary with moisture content; hence, it is not

a reliable design parameter considering

a structure’s life span. Underestimating

frictional strength and disregard of existing

apparent cohesion leads to a paradoxical

conclusion where magic is real and basic

rules of mechanics are unreal!

Reports on measured force that are

smaller than predicted are often mentioned

to reflect “at working” condition. This

condition is explained by the absence of a

slip surface in the backfill soil. Design that

considers a limit state in determining the

strength (and length) of the geosynthetic

is overly conservative, as the premise of

failure is not realized. This explanation also

serves as a reason for uncritical acceptance

of measured data in lieu of mechanics.

However, existence of apparent cohe-

sion and higher than assumed frictional

strength can prevent the formation of

continuous slip surface (e.g., Figures

1/1a), providing an equally compelling

and physically sound explanation for the

“at working” conditions. Such conditions

underestimate the required strength of the

geosynthetic should the apparent cohesion

diminish or should the designer use the

actual frictional strength of the backfill.

Paradoxically, to prevent the forma-

tion of slip surfaces by stiff geosynthetic

layers alone, it has to be stronger than

the load that causes the slip surface to

fully develop. That is, they have to be able

to resist backfill movements, therefore

preventing the soil from mobilizing its

frictional strength. To ensure stability, the

reinforcement has to compensate for the

smaller contribution of resistance from the

“restrained” soil. Hence, the “at working”

condition does not explain the magic of

low measured force; the unaccounted soil

strength does. Proper use of soil strength

leads to design that is sound and compat-

ible with statics.

Finally, the design of geotechnical

structures nearly always considers the

safety against collapse. Apparent cohesion

is ignored in design, as it should be.

Determining the required reinforce-

ment strength based solely on measured

field data while ignoring the apparent

cohesion may result in a structure that is

inherently unsafe. Globally there could be a

substantial deficit in the sum of resistance

of all layers of reinforcement relative to

what is statically needed to stabilize the

cohesionless reinforced structure.

Static global equilibrium must be a

considered as a benchmark when assess-

ing experimental data. Indeed, the current

reduction factor for creep could be exces-

sive and may make up for a magic-based

unconservative approach.

However, counting on two wrongs

to make one right promotes magic as-

sociated with the use of geosynthetics

in reinforced soil. Moreover, since en-

gineering is not science fiction, magic

in design is a step in the wrong direc-

tion. Soil reinforcing is a subarea of slope

engineering for which well-established,

sound designs already exist. G


>> For more, search reinforcement at


Static global

equilibrium must

be a considered

as a benchmark

when assessing

experimental data.



for the serious geosynthetics installer!

DEMTECH Services, Inc. • P.O. Box 2165, Placerville, CA 95667 • 6414 Capit l Ave., Diamond Springs, CA 95619

www.demtech.com • 888-324-WELD (9353) • 530-621-3200 • Fax 530-621-0150 • [email protected]

Pro-Seam Model 110-0100/A

Wedge Welder

PrPrrrrrrroooooooooo Seammmmmmm Modellllllll 1101010 00000010100/0/0////////////AAAAAAAA

BUILT BETTER!

Services Inc.

DEM ECH®

MAKING A WORLD OF DIFFERENCE

Services Inc.

DEM ECH®

Pro-Wedge VM-20

Wedge Welder

Pro-X Model 600-0100/A

Extrusion Welder

T-0100/A Tensiometer

o


http://www.demtech.com



Aeration basin off-gas venting connection



Retractable geomembrane covers provide multiple effi ciencies for Bay Area wastewater plant

Jim McMahon of Zebra Communications

writes about water and wastewater issues.

Ron Bygness, editor of Geosynthetics, also

contributed to this article.

Photos courtesy of GTI

A retractable, structurally-supported geomembrane cover

system provides odor control and ease of maintenance

access for the Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District.

By Jim McMahon

Introduction

The initial goal was to contain odors from its wastewater treatment plant.

What the Vallejo (Calif.) Sanitation and Flood Control District (VSFCD)

eventually realized is a fully retractable, structurally-supported geomembrane

cover system that provides odor control plus ease of access for maintenance of its

wastewater treatment basins.

This plant, located near the northeastern stretches of San Pablo Bay north of San

Francisco, was engaged in a program to scrub off-gas odors from all aspects of its

wastewater treatment plant. Early in the project, the district covered the facilities in

its headworks and primary treatment steps to control off-gas.

Later, it developed a process for the management and disposal of its biosolids,

including designing a specialized hopper for storage of the plant’s dewatered solids and

an automated truck-filling for transportation of this material to VSFCD-owned land at

nearby Tubbs Island. The plant disposes of 20,000yd³ of biosolids per year, where it is

used as a soil additive to improve farmland at the Tubbs Island location. The VSFCD

treatment plant also differs from others in that it uses no digesters in this process.

The wastewater plant then focused on scrubbing off-gas odors from its secondary

treatment processes and, specifically, its two open aeration basins. To contain these

odors, the district eventually opted for a retractable, structurally-supported geomem-

brane cover system, which has not only proven effective for the collection of off-gas,

but has also provided an efficient flexibility and ease-of-access for tank monitoring,

maintenance, and repairs.

VSFCD’s wastewater treatment processPassing through Vallejo’s primary water treatment units—its headworks, grit chamber,

and primary clarifiers—where the solids are separated out, the liquid part of the waste

stream flows to the plant’s secondary treatment for biological processing.

After biofiltration, the wastewater is pumped into two aeration basins. The aeration

tanks condition the solids particles discharged from the biotowers so they settle more

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

OWNER

Vallejo (Calif.) Sanitation and

Flood Control District

PROJECT

Aeration basins cover system

DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT

Carollo Engineers

GEOMEMBRANE DESIGN, ENGINEERING, MANUFACTURING

Geomembrane Technologies Inc.




readily in the downstream secondary clari-

fiers. Blowers and fine-bubble diffusers

mounted on the floor of the basins introduce

air that is necessary for the flocculation of

particles, converting the organic solids into

heavier clumps that settle and are removed by

sedimentation in the secondary clarifiers.

Streamlined basin coversThe Vallejo plant’s two secondary waste-

water processing aeration basins were in-

stalled in 1988. They are each 15ft deep,

15ft wide, and 110ft long.

Every few weeks, the plant’s operators

conduct visual inspections into the aeration

tanks from the top. The tanks are drained

annually and workers go down inside to

conduct a physical inspection of the blow-

ers and diffusers at the bottom, and to hose

down the sides of the basins.

For almost 20 years the basins remained

uncovered. But as part of the plant’s odor-

control upgrade, the district looked into

options for covering them. Carollo En-

gineers, an environmental engineering

firm specializing in the planning, design,

and construction of water and wastewa-

ter facilities, was retained by the VSFCD

to handle the design and construction

management for the plant odor control

upgrade, and began reviewing different

cover options for enclosing the basins.

“We wanted the covers first for odor

control, so they needed to be corrosion

resistant,” said Tim Tekippe, Carollo’s

project manager handling the Vallejo

project. “But we also needed the covers

to be easy to open and close for access to

the tanks for sampling, scheduled main-

tenance, and repairs. We felt structur-

ally-supported covers would be the best

system for the plant’s needs because of

the access they provide. We first looked

at rigid type covers such as aluminum

and fiberglass, but both of these proved

more labor intensive for operators to gain

access to the basins.”

Geomembrane covers

Inside Vallejo aeration basin prior to installation of new covers

Aerial view of Vallejo plant showing location of aeration basins with new bright white covers

Aeration basins with new retractable covers

Geo_Search_fp.indd 1 4/22/10 1:20:55 PM0610GS_p12-31.indd 280610GS_p12-31.indd 28 5/27/10 7:11:22 AM5/27/10 7:11:22 AM

Find what you need in seconds.5000+ articles and growing.


Search Geosynthetics and our other six industry magazines all at once.

Easy. Fast. Informative.

Fabric Architecture Fabric Graphics InTents Marine Fabricator Specialty Fabrics Review Upholstery Journal

It’s all about the

search

Geo_Search_fp.indd 1 4/22/10 1:20:55 PM0610GS_p12-31.indd 290610GS_p12-31.indd 29 5/27/10 7:11:28 AM5/27/10 7:11:28 AM



even walked on them while they were in

place over the tank, to see how strong and

durable they were. Based on that trip, we

decided to design these retractable covers

into our aeration basins.”

Installation and operationVallejo’s new retractable, structurally-

supported geomembrane cover system

consists of a composite sheet of high-

strength, UV-protected, coated fabric

tensioned across a series of low-profile

aluminum arches that span the tank’s

opening. Intermediate aluminum walk-

ways spanning the tank are used to divide

the fabric cover sections into appropriate

lengths for easy retractability.

The geomembrane cover fabric is a

laminated sheet of 40-mil specialty PVC

(Ethylene Interpolymer Alloy or EIA) that

acts as a gastight barrier to keep the off-

gas from passing through. It incorporates

a specialized weave design that provides

maximum strength-to-weight ratios.

Since this topsheet is exposed to the

sun, it is also equipped with advanced UV

inhibitors. The material can withstand

temperatures to minus 30°F. This cover’s

attributes include: seam strength, puncture

and tear resistance, low thermal expansion

and contraction properties, a wide range

of chemical resistance, high flexibility, and

dimensional stability under high loads and

temperature fluctuations, making it ideal

for wastewater cover applications.

The covers for the Vallejo site’s basins

are gastight, operating under negative

air pressure. A ventilation system draws

air through the tank and underneath the

covers, and pulls along with it the off-

gas from the aeration process. Off-gas

removal piping is connected directly to

the cover system and out to a soil filter

for odor scrubbing.

Although the membrane covers are

gastight, they can be detached and rolled

up along the frame. This gives operators

Geomembrane covers“Along with Carollo, our engineering firm,

we looked at a number of other wastewater

plants and what they were using to cover

their aeration tanks,” said Barry Pomeroy,

director of Operations and Maintenance

at VSFCD. “We went to a water treat-

ment plant in Colorado that was using

retractable, structurally-supported covers

made with a geomembrane fabric. They

looked like they would be very easy to

remove for maintenance, and [we] watched

how easy they were to open and close. We

Geomembrane covers

The new VSFSD cover showing aluminum walkways

Off-gas removal piping connected directly to the geomembrane covers and then out to a soil

filter for odor scrubbing



access to inspect and maintain inter-

nal components of the two basins. The

membrane covers then reattach in a time-

efficient and safe process. Additional

hatches in the intermediate aluminum

walkways allow access by plant operators

without retracting the entire cover.

Attractive option for municipal wastewater and drinking water plants“The expected life of these retractable

covers is about 15 years,” said Tekippe. “And

the cost is very attractive. If a cover [had] to

be replaced, it would be easy to change out

and could be done in minimal time.

“These retractable covers are well-suited

for both municipal wastewater and drink-

ing water plants. We have since specified

them for use in other public water and

wastewater projects,” Tekippe added.

Today, many municipalities are look-

ing for efficient tank cover systems to

contain off-gases, reduce algae growth,

simplify maintenance and repairs, and

cut expenses. Geomembrane covers have

become an increasingly attractive option for

streamlining wastewater plant operations.

Sources and contacts

Geomembrane Technologies Inc., contact Brennan

Sisk; +1 506 452 7304; 1133 Regent Street, Suite 300,

Fredericton, NB, Canada, E3B 3Z2; [email protected];

www.gticovers.com

Carollo Engineers, contact Tim Tekippe, P.E., Vallejo

Project Manager; +1 512 453 5383; 8911 Capital of

Texas Highway, Suite 2200, Austin, TX 78759; ttekippe@

carollo.com; www.carollo.com

Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District, contact

Barry Pomeroy, director of Operations and Maintenance;

+1 707 644 8949, ext. 251; 450 Ryder Street, Vallejo, CA

94590; [email protected]; www.vsfcd.com G

Visit our booths at the following shows:StormCon- booth #825, WasteCon- booth #3008 and ASLA- booth #1103.

To learn more about geomembrane solutions from Firestone Specialty Products

800-428-4442 l info@fi restonesp.com l www.fi restonesp.com/ifai7

{ Proud to be Part of the Overall Solution }Innovative projects require innovative products, like

Firestone Geomembranes. The durability and elasticity of our products, even in exposed applications, combined with our expertise,

help ensure the success of even the most demanding projects.

AGRICULTURE APPLICATIONS

RESERVOIRS

AQUACULTUREAPPLICATIONS

GOLF COURSEAND DECORATIVECOMMERCIALAPPLICATIONS

LANDFILL CAPSAND FLOATINGCOVERS

IRRIGATION CANALS

MININGAPPLICATIONS

STORM WATERAPPLICATIONS

{ Many Applications - One Source }

>> For more, search geomembranes at



http://www.firestonesp.com/ifai7



http://www.gticovers.com

http://www.carollo.com


http://www.vsfcd.com



Mirafi® RS580i... the integrated difference.

The new Mirafi® RS580i ...It’s like comparing apples to oranges for Roadway R

Modulus. Separation. Confinement. Water flow. Product identification. Superior integration*.

Protective & Outdoor FabricsAerospace CompositesArmour Composites

GeosyntheticsIndustrial FabricsSynthetic Grass

Integration refers to the overall set of described characteristics based on a review of technical specifications for comparable products published by their respective manufacturers. Individual characteristics of these products vary and may meet, exceed, or fall below one or more of the above described individual characteristics.


http://www.mirafi.com

1.800.685.9990 | mirafi.com

For a demonstration of this product, visit www.mirafi.com*patent pending

For roads, railways, airport runways, haul roads and embankments, Mirafi® RS580i will be the engineer’s choice...period. All others are just...well...apples.

Mirafi® RS580i is the superior geosynthetic product for base reinforcement and subgrade stabilization.

Our game changing new high-strength woven multi-layered geotextile product provides excellent reinforcement strength and base course confinement integrated with high water flow and soil retention capabilities.

Welcome to the new world of Mirafi® RS580i.

y Reinforcement.

Orange wins.

We will leave you seeing orange.

When compared to the leading subgrade stabilization geosynthetics: holds 2x more force with less overall system movement | lower ultimate elongation | 3x water flow | higher particle retention




Geosynthetics-based underground

stormwater detention system.



Geosynthetic materials play a major role in new underground stormwater detention system

Terry Sheridan is president of GeoStorage

Corp. His career includes four years as a

regional sales engineer with a national

corrugated steel pipe company and 17 years

with a geogrid manufacturing company,

managing environmental projects, before

founding GeoStorage Corp. in 2006;

[email protected].

Photos courtesy of GeoStorage Corp.

By Terence G. Sheridan, P.E.

Introduction

Stormwater management is an ever-increasing expense on

site development projects.

Stormwater detention ponds are designed to protect against

downstream flooding and environmental degradation. The standard

of practice is to ensure that post-development flow from a site does

not exceed the pre-development rate for a given storm event.

Where land is expensive, detention systems are located under-

ground. Traditional underground detention systems are comprised

of pipes, pipe arches, and concrete vaults. A new underground

stormwater detention system has been developed that combines a

number of different civil engineering disciplines.

Geosynthetic materials play a major role in critical components

of this new stormwater detention system.

Traditional stormwater systemsCorrugated metal and plastic pipes are the most common materials

used in underground stormwater detention applications. These flex-

ible pipes transfer stresses to the surrounding soil and rely on ring

compression and soil arching for structural integrity.

Design standards are based on tightly controlled structural

backfill properties and compaction efforts. Given AASHTO and

state DOT gradation requirements, particularly those related to

the fines content (silt and clay), most flexible pipe projects require

imported backfill.

A new systemA new underground stormwater detention system creates a large

storage chamber utilizing geosynthetics, stone, and concrete slabs.

Essentially, a geotextile or geomembrane liner system is installed

within an excavation. Around the perimeter of the excavation, walls

are constructed with geosynthetic reinforcement and open-graded

stone to create a large underground chamber. Inlet and outlet pipes

extend through the perimeter liner system and wall face into the

open chamber.

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

Roosevelt Manor

OWNER

City of Camden (N.J.)

Housing Authority

CITY ENGINEER

Remington Vernick Engineers

PROJECT ENGINEER

PS&S Engineers

GENERAL CONTRACTOR

Haines & Kibblehouse Inc.

STORMWATER SYSTEM

GeoStorage Corp.

INSTALLER

CETCO Contracting Services Co.





Stormwater detention system

A reinforced concrete roof is installed

over the chamber and supported by the

perimeter abutments/walls. Finally, the

liner system is installed over the stone

surface of the perimeter walls before the

cover soil brings the site to grade. On larger

systems, interior reinforced stone piers can

be installed within an expanded chamber

to increase the width and storage capacity

of the system.

Given the application, water forces

are an important consideration. If water

drains from the chamber faster than it

drains from the backfill, the perimeter

walls will experience a rapid drawdown

condition. The use of angular, open-graded

stone eliminates pore pressures and has

the added benefit of increasing storage

capacity with a 40% void ratio.

GRS wallsAs presented in previous issues of

Geosynthetics magazine (see Refer-

ences, page 41), the Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) has developed

a geosynthetic-reinforced soil (GRS)

integrated bridge system in an effort to

simplify the design and reduce the cost

of basic, single-span bridges.

The abutment walls of these bridge

systems are characterized by tightly spaced

geosynthetic layers where the spacing is

the key design consideration as opposed

Underground stormwater detention system schematic.

Geomembrane installed with nonwoven geotextile for puncture protection.

Underground stormwater detention system with sand fi lter



to long-term design strength. Another

unique feature of the FHWA integrated

bridge system is the placement of the

bridge superstructure directly on top

of the reinforced abutment. While the

elimination of a bearing pad on top of the

bridge substructure might be anathema

to structural engineers, the performance

of full-scale experiments and an ever

increasing number of installations verify

the capacity of the GRS bearing sills.

The bearing walls of geosynthetic-based

underground detention systems function

in the same manner as GRS bridge abut-

ments. The elimination of a bearing curb

along the wall face reduces costs and speeds

construction. The performance of these

detention systems complements the data

and observations of GRS bridge systems.

E X P A N D E D P O L Y S T Y R E N E

Insulfoam, the leader in block-molded EPS, offers InsulFoam GF… an amazingly versatile and lightweight fi ll product that is 100% recyclable. Weighing as little as 1% of other traditional fi ll materials, InsulFoam GF can save you time and money on your next bridge or road project.

For all your Geofoam needs, remember just one name — Insulfoam.

ENGINEERED EPSVersatile - Durable - Recyclable

800.248.5995

InsulFoam®

Insulfoam · 6004 N. Westgate Blvd. Suite 120 · Tacoma, WA 98406 · Fax: 253.383.7100

®

Underground stormwater detention

systems are typically located below parking

lots. Materials that flex or creep can induce

stress in the pavement section, which can

lead to long-term maintenance problems.

It has been observed that the GRS

integrated bridge system eliminates the

“bump” commonly observed on tradi-

tional bridge approaches where the soil

ramp meets the concrete pier. Similarly,

a geosynthetic reinforced stone detention

system provides a uniformly solid founda-

tion for the parking lot.

The face of the chamber wall is

installed utilizing standard “wrap face”

construction with welded wire forms to

enable compaction to the edge. When a

geogrid is used for reinforcement, the

stone and geogrid apertures have to be

The bearing walls of

geosynthetic-based

underground detention

systems function in the

same manner as GRS

bridge abutments.



http://www.insulfoam.com




sized to ensure no raveling at the face.

Below the bearing sill, smaller stones are

installed and a geotextile wrap is used at

the face.

Liner system Until recently, most stormwater manage-

ment systems incorporated a detention

system that released the contained storm-

water through a controlled outlet with an

overflow weir to handle storms larger than

the design event.

Today, the preferred practice is to

recharge the ground water through perco-

lation where it is feasible. The liner system

can be designed accordingly.

Geomembranes can be installed for de-

tention applications and provide superior

performance where a reusable water supply

is desired. Recharge/retention applications

can utilize geotextile liners.

In these applications the chamber floor is

accessible for inspection and, when needed,

clogged geotextiles can be replaced.

Roof deckThe roof deck, which spans the chamber

and is supported by reinforced stone walls,

is designed to AASHTO HS-20 bridge

standards (Section 3.24.12).

The roof deck is the most expensive

component of the system. Recognizing

that the deck design is the same whether

the chamber is 2ft or 10ft deep, it is clear

that a deeper chamber will increase the

efficiency of the system. The roof deck

can be cast in place or comprised of pre-

cast panels.

The top of the system is fixed by the

elevation of the lowest upstream manhole/

grate. On detention applications the floor

is fixed by the elevation of the downstream

outlet. On recharge applications depth is

limited by the water table or a low perme-

ability soil stratum.

The drainage and grading plan often

dictates that the system be buried. Bur-

ied systems eliminate concerns about the Precast roof deck panels placed directly on geosynthetic-reinforced walls.

Design note: No concrete grade beam required on bearing sill.

Geosynthetic-reinforced stone perimeter walls constructed with geogrids and

compacted open graded stone.



tolerances of precast panels installed flush

with the parking lot surface.

Inspection and maintenanceSite designs focus on limiting erosion

through the use of Best Management

Practices (BMPs).

However, while BMPs will reduce the

suspended solids in stormwater, sediment

will still collect in the detention system. The

large open chamber of the geosynthetic-

based system enables personnel to inspect

and maintain the underground system.

As stormwater regulations become

more stringent and enforcement more

routine, the ability to inspect and remove

sediment from underground detention

systems will become more important.

Stormwater quality Sand filters are a time-proven pollutant

remover.

However, in underground applications

the cost of the concrete vault required to

house the sand filter is expensive. As a

result, new technologies are entering the

marketplace to meet regulatory pollutant

removal requirements. These technolo-

gies include vortex chambers and filter

cartridge systems housed in smaller con-

crete vaults.

The geosynthetic-based detention

system enables the construction of a tra-

ditional sand filter within a chamber. The

water quality volume can be stored in a

geomembrane lined chamber above the

sand filter.

The geosynthetic-based

underground detention

system off ers a cost-

eff ective alternative to

traditional underground

stormwater detention

and retention systems.



http://www.plastikakritis.com



As an option, a Reactive Core Mat®

can be installed above the sand layer to

decrease its thickness and augment con-

taminant removal. Where desired a second

chamber may be lined to create a forebay

that removes sediment upstream of the

sand filter chamber. The performance of

the geosynthetic based system mimics that

of traditional underground sand filters but

at a significant savings.

ConclusionThe geosynthetic-based underground

detention system offers a cost-effective

alternative to traditional underground

stormwater detention and retention sys-

tems. In addition, this new system requires

a smaller footprint.

In the future, as stormwater quality

regulations are enacted the large open

chamber will offer additional benefits.

The chamber allows for easy access, an

important feature for owners and mu-

nicipalities charged with maintaining their

stormwater systems.

The chamber also provides access to the

geotextile filter should it need to be replaced

because of clogging issues. Lastly, the cham-

ber enables the construction of an efficient

underground sand filter where regulations

require stormwater treatment.

The liner, reinforced walls, and con-

crete deck comprising this system are well

established in the civil engineering market.

Ample research exists to support the design

life of the materials and the performance

of the components.

On even the largest projects the geo-

synthetics can be shipped on a single truck.

The open graded stone is available at the

local quarry and the required tonnage

will be less than the structural backfill

required for an equivalent pipe system.

The concrete roof will be shipped from

the local precaster and require a fraction

of the amount of trucks necessary to ship

an equivalent amount of pipe. In addition,

the excavation will be significantly smaller


Completed stormwater system installed with manhole for chamber access.

Large open chamber allows for accessible inspection and maintenance.

Note: No movement/stress in the upper portion of the wall below the bearing sill.



than a pipe system. For developers looking

to build “green,” the geosynthetic option

offers many distinct advantages over tra-

ditional pipe systems.

Innovation allows construction bud-

gets to accomplish more and stormwater

management is a large and growing portion

of site development and transportation

budgets. By piggybacking on the research

and development of existing civil engineer-

ing technologies, this new system allows

property owners and municipalities to save

money on their stormwater detention and

treatment systems.

ReferencesU.S. DOT/Federal Highway Administration, “Building

the bridge of the future with GRS technology,”

Geosynthetics, Vol. 24, No. 4, 2006, pp. 22-23.

Adams. M., “The GRS bridges of Defiance County,”

Geosynthetics, Vol. 26, No. 2, 2008, pp. 14-21.

Adams. M., Schlatter. W., Stabile. T., “Geosynthetic-

reinforced soil integrated bridge system,” EuroGeo4–

the 4th European Geosynthetics Conference,

Edinburgh UK, September 2008, paper number 271.

CARLISLE GEOMEMBRANES FOR AMERICA AND THE WORLD800-479-6832 • P.O. Box 7000 • Carlisle, PA 17013 • Fax: 717-245-7053 • www.carlislegeomembrane.comCarlisle is a trademark of Carlisle. © 2010 Carlisle.

The industry’s only geomembrane designed with Carlisle’s proprietary weathering technology, Carlisle’s GeoPolypro continuesto perform after 20,000 hours of intense U/V exposure. GM-18 testing, conducted by the Geosynthetics Research Institute, is the most stringent test in the industry.

For more information on Carlisle’s GeoMembrane and the new GM-18 standard,

visit www.carlislegeomembrane.com

Carlisle’s GeoPolypro meets the the new GM-18 standard for polypropylene.

Author’s Note: GeoStorage Corp. owns patents (U.S.

#7,473,055 B2 and international) related to the geosyn-

thetic-based underground stormwater detention system

discussed in this article. G

>> For more, search stormwater at




http://www.carlislegeomembrane.com


http://www.geoace.com



FIGURE 1 The MSE wall and sound barrier wall only

several feet away from the apartment building

FIGURE 2 (INSET) Highway, sound barrier wall, MSE

wall, and apartment building



MSE walls support laterally loaded drilled shaft sBy Jie Han, Robert Parsons, Matthew Pierson, and James Brennan

Jie Han is an associate professor in the Department of Civil,

Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of

Kansas and is the coprincipal investigator on this research project.

Robert Parsons is an associate professor in the Department of Civil,


Kansas and is the principal investigator on this research project.

Matthew Pierson is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Civil,


Kansas and is the graduate research assistant working on this project.

James Brennan is an assistant geotechnical engineer with the Kansas

Department of Transportation and the monitor of this research project.

Photos courtesy of the authors

PROJECT HIGHLIGHTS

SPONSOR

Kansas Department of Transportation

RESEARCHER

Department of Civil, Environmental, and

Architectural Engineering, University of Kansas

DESIGNER

Tensar International Corp.

GEOGRID AND BLOCK SUPPLIERS (DONATION)

Tensar International Corp. and Midwest Block and Brick

MSE AND SHAFT CONSTRUCTION

KDOT Maintenance

ROCK SOCKETS

Great Plains Drilling

TESTING

Applied Foundation Testing, Dan Brown &

Associates, and KDOT geotechnical group

BLOCKS AND GEOGRIDS

Mesa segmental units, Tensar UX uniaxial geogrids, and

Mesa connectors

A new take on sound-barrier walls

Introduction

When residential areas are close to highways, sound bar-

rier walls are often constructed to minimize noise from

traffic on those roads. Under certain circumstances,

mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls are used to support the

sound barrier walls.

Figures 1 and 2 show an MSE wall supporting a sound barrier wall

several feet away from an apartment building near the intersection of

Interstate 435 and U.S. Highway 69 in Overland Park, Kan., a suburb

of Kansas City. Due to weather conditions in Kansas, the sound barrier

wall can be subjected to substantial wind load.

The traditional design practice in Kansas has been to use

reinforced concrete shafts with rock sockets isolated from the MSE wall

to support the sound barrier wall as shown in Figure 3 (page 44). The

isolation of the shafts from the MSE wall simplifies the design of the

shafts and the MSE wall.

In this design, the shafts and the MSE wall are designed indepen-

dently without any interaction. Since it is assumed that there is no lateral

support of the shafts from the MSE wall in this design, rock sockets

are necessary to carry the lateral load from the sound barrier and are

installed prior to the MSE wall construction.

Inner and outer casings are placed with a gap as the wall is

constructed. The inner casing is filled with concrete to form the shaft

once the wall construction is completed. This approach is convenient

for simplifying the design, but construction of rock sockets is slow and

costly.

Under this condition, the shafts are designed as cantilever beams,

which require large-diameter shafts to resist the significant bending

moment. The typical diameter of shafts used for this application ranges

from 2.5–4.0ft. The requirement of rock sockets and large-diameter

shafts makes this system very expensive.

An alternative design was proposed by the Kansas Department

of Transportation (KDOT) and the University of Kansas as shown in

Figure 4 (page 44). In this design, the shafts are included in the MSE

mass and seated on the bedrock instead of being keyed into the bedrock

with rock sockets.

Different from the traditional approach, it is expected in the new

design that the geosynthetic-reinforced soil mass provides lateral




Sound barrier walls

support to the shafts so that smaller

diameter shafts without rock sockets may

be used. As a result, this design provides

a more economical foundation solution

for the sound barrier wall, compared with

the traditional design, with an estimated

savings of more than $1,500 per shaft.

Individual projects may have dozens or

even hundreds of shafts.

Design and constructionTo verify the proposed design, a research

project was funded by KDOT through the

K-TRAN Research Program to construct

a full-scale MSE test wall in Kansas.

The test wall was 140ft long and 20ft

tall and contained eight test shafts 3ft

in diameter as shown in Figure 5. The

wall system used in the experiment is an

integrated system of components that

included HDPE uniaxial geogrids, seg-

mental units, and connectors. The test

wall was designed according to AASTHO

specifications without considering the

existence of the shafts.

A typical design section is shown in

Figure 6, which included five layers of

stronger geogrids in the bottom half and

five layers of weaker geogrids in the top

half. The length of the geogrids was 14ft,

which is equal to 0.7 times the height of

the wall.

The spacing between geogrid layers

was 2ft. The wall facing was formed by

segmental blocks with nominal dimen-

sions of 8in. high, 18in. wide, and 11in.

deep. The individual geogrid layers were

mechanically connected to the blocks by

connectors ensuring a reliable structural

connection of all system components. This

wall had a 3-ft-deep embedment.

The test shafts were located at distances

of 1, 2, 3, and 4 shaft diameters from

the back of the wall facing. Figure 7

shows the construction of the MSE wall

and the test and reaction shafts. In this

photo, corrugated metal pipes (CMP)

were preset in the backfill for the cast-FIGURE 5 Completed test wall

FIGURE 3 Traditional design practice of an MSE wall supporting a sound

barrier wall

SOUND BARRIER WALL

SHAFT

GEOSYNTHETICS

CASING

BEDROCKROCK SOCKET

LEVELING PAD

WALL FACING

SOUND BARRIER WALL

SHAFT

CASING

BEDROCK

LEVELING PAD

WALL FACING GEOSYNTHETICS

FIGURE 4 Proposed design of an MSE wall supporting a sound barrier wall



ing of shafts after the completion of the

MSE wall.

The casings were installed by staking

short sections of CMP for the shaft

while the backfill and reinforcement

were placed around the CMP. Additional

sections of CMP were added as the fill

progressed and steel cages were placed

inside the CMP. Extruded, punched-

drawn HDPE unaxial geogrid was used

for this test wall and cut to fit around

the shafts as shown in Figure 8.

There was no connection or anchorage

of geogrid to the shafts. In Figure 9, the

test shafts are located in the front row while

the reaction shafts are located in the rear

row, which was behind the reinforced fill.

The test shafts were seated on the bedrock

except one having the length equal to 75%

of the wall height to determine the capacity

of a “short” shaft.

High-quality free draining backfill

material was used for the reinforced and

retained fills. Details on the construction of

this test wall can be found in the research

report by Pierson et al. (2008).

Instrumentation and shaft lateral load testing

This test wall was instrumented with earth

pressure cells behind the wall facing, strain

gages in the geogrid layers, telltales on

the geogrid layers and in the reinforced

fill, inclinometer casings in the test and

reaction shafts and in front of the test

shafts, and targets on the wall facing for

photogrammetry during the shaft lateral

load testing.

Figure 9 shows the test shafts at differ-

ent distances from the wall facing and the

inclinometer casings. These casings were

used during the shaft lateral load testing

to measure the lateral movement of the

shafts and the wall.

Figure 10 (page 46) shows the targets

placed on the wall facing, which were

captured by a high-resolution camera

located at a distance from the wall. The

FIGURE 6 Typical design section

FIGURE 7 Construction of the MSE wall and the test and

reaction shafts

FIGURE 8 Geogrid cut around the shaft casing

FIGURE 9 Test shafts and inclinometer casings

SANDSTONE

LIMESTONE

SHALE

LIMESTONE

0.3m DRAINAGE FILL 0.2m IMPERMEABLE SOIL COVERGRANULAR BACKFILL

14 ft

20 ft1m EMBEDMENT

Profi le of wall and subsurface




black zone on each target is 6in. long,

which was used as a scale when the image

was imported into the computer-aided

design (CAD) software.

The red frames in Figure 10 show the

original locations of the targets. The green

lines within the red frames indicate the

movement of the wall facing. Details on

the instrumentation can be found in the

paper by Pierson et al. (2009a).

Five single shafts and one group of

three shafts were tested. Figure 11 shows

the setup of the single shaft lateral load

test while Figure 12 shows the setup of

the group shaft lateral load test. Shafts

were pushed toward the wall by one or two

hydraulic jacks and the resulting displace-

ments ranged from 4-9in. Measurements

were taken during each test including the

deflection of the shaft by LVDTs at the

loading elevation and inclinometers, the

movement of the wall facing by the targets,

the internal movement and strains in the

geogrid by telltales and strain gages, and

the earth pressures behind the wall facing

by the pressure cells.

Test results and discussionSignificant amounts of test data were

obtained from this field testing, most of

which are available in the publications by

Pierson (2008) and Pierson et al. (2009b).

Several key results and observations from

the testing are presented here.

Table 1 summarizes the lateral load

capacities of shafts in the MSE wall obtained

from the lateral load testing. Except for Shaft

BS (15ft long), all shafts were 20ft long. Shaft

BG is one of three group shafts. All other

shafts were tested in a single shaft test.

The peak load capacities are reported

at the top displacement of the shaft at

0.5, 0.75, 1.0, 2.0, 4.0in., and an ultimate

state. It is shown that the peak load of each

shaft increased nonlinearly with the top

displacement of the shaft. Lateral capacity

increased substantially with the distance

of the shaft from the wall facing.

Sound barrier walls

FIGURE 10 Targets on the wall facing for photogrammetry

FIGURE 11 Single shaft lateral load test

FIGURE 12 Group shaft lateral load test

TABLE 1 Lateral Load Capacities of Shafts in the MSE Wall (Pierson, 2008)

ShaftDist. from

Facing (in.)Peak Load (kip)

Top Displacement

of Shaft0.5" 0.75” 1" 2" 4" Ultimate

A 36 – 14 15 23 32 34

BS 72 (15' Length) 27 30 33 40 49 55

BG 72 (15' Spacing) 27 35 39 53 70 85

B 72 40 47 50 62 77 90

C 108 39 44 50 66 87 116

D 144 – – 55 81 120 194



Using Shaft D (located close to the

end of the reinforced zone) as a reference,

Shafts A (i.e., the shaft closest to the wall

facing), B, and C had approximately 27%,

91%, and 95% peak load compared with

the reference shaft, respectively, at the

top displacement of 1in. Therefore, the

shaft had a significant load capacity once

the shaft was located at a distance of two

times the diameter of the shaft.

Table 1 shows that the short shaft (Shaft

BS) had more than 60% load capacity as the

regular single shaft (Shaft B) at the same

distance to the wall facing. Table 1 also

shows that the center shaft (Shaft BG) in

the group had 68-94% load capacity as the

regular single shaft (Shaft B), which indi-

cates a group effect for the shafts spaced

at 15ft apart.

After the group load test was per-

formed, a section was excavated to

examine the geogrid between two shafts.

The aperture size of the geogrid was mea-

sured to determine its elongation. The

maximum strain in the geogrid was 3%

and occurred at the shaft and the strain

level decreased to 0 at a distance of 57in.

from the near edge of the shaft. This result

indicates that the surrounding geogrid

was involved in resisting the lateral load

even though the geogrid was cut to fit

around the shafts.

Due to the pattern of the facing blocks

and the rough masonry appearance of

their surfaces, the aesthetics of the wall

system were only affected slightly by the

wall movement, resulting from the lateral

shaft testing. The deflection of the wall fac-

ing was only seen from the top of the wall

looking down, or from the side looking at

the wall facing parallel. The movements of

individual blocks were visible only upon

close inspection, even for wall displace-

ments in excess of 6in.

Despite the significant loadings

and displacements imposed during the

experiment, the wall system remained

fully intact. The mechanical connections

PLASTIC WELDING

800 694 1472 (Western U.S.)800 635 0384 (North-Central U.S.)888 807 4030 (North-Eastern U.S.)800 241 4628 (South-Eastern U.S.)

888 438 6324 (Canada)

Leister Process TechnologiesSwitzerland / www.leister.com

Leister:The specialistfor perfect weldingof geomembranes.

We’ve been setting the standard.For more than 60 years.

E X P O N E N T I A LE X P O N E N T I A Lp o s s i b i l i t i e s

HIGH-POINT® Architectural Fabrics

800-892-9358www.plastatech.com

800-892-9358Tech 5® Geomembrane

Calendered Films • Weft-Inserted Textile Knits Industrial Membranes • Laminates

Field-Proven Performance

Visit us at Booth #1206at the IFAI Expo



http://www.leister.com

http://www.plastatech.com


of geogrid to block likely contributed to

robustness of the wall system and the sys-

tem’s ability to maintain integrity after

such large displacements were imposed.

Additionally, the textured surfacing and

finish of the segmental blocks hide the

local deformation of the wall facing well,

as shown in Figure 13.

SummaryShafts in MSE walls are used to support

sound barrier walls near highways and major

roads when a residential area is nearby. The

traditional design, which isolates the shafts

from the MSE mass to simplify the design,

requires rock sockets and large-diameter

shafts, and thus, is very costly.

An alternative design was proposed and

verified through a full-scale MSE test wall

in this research. In this design, the shafts

are seated on the bedrock and supported by

the MSE mass. The field single and group

Sound barrier walls

shaft lateral load testing demonstrated

that the shaft could carry significant loads

when the shaft was located at two times

the shaft diameter (36 in.).

There was a group effect when the shafts

were spaced at 15ft apart and located at a

distance of two times diameter of the shafts.

Even though the geogrid layers were cut

around the shaft, they were involved in

resisting the lateral load from the shaft.

The segmental blocks were tolerable

to the differential movement induced by

the shaft and effective in hiding the local

deformation even at the wall facing de-

flection more than 5in. As a result, the

alternative design approach investigated

appears to be technically viable for the

specific wall system used in the testing.

This research has demonstrated an eco-

nomic alternative to the standard KDOT

method, allowing future noise wall con-

struction to occur more economically.

FIGURE 13 Wall facing deflection after the group shaft test (5.3 in. maximum facing movement, in the afternoon)



AcknowledgementsThis research project was financially sponsored by the

Kansas Department of Transportation.

The KDOT maintenance and geotechnical group

provided its great help in constructing and testing

the wall.

The contributions of Tensar International Corp.,

Midwest Block and Brick, Applied Foundation Testing,

Great Plains Drilling, and Dan Brown & Associates

were essential to the successful completion of this

project. Their sponsorships and contributions are

greatly appreciated.

ReferencesPierson, M. C., Parsons, R. L., Han, J., Brennan, J. J.,

and Vulova, C. (2009a). “Instrumentation of MSE wall

containing laterally loaded drilled shafts.” Proceedings

of IFCEE 09, ASCE Geotechnical Special Publication No.

187, 353-360.

Pierson, M. C., Parsons, R. L., Han, J., and Brennan,

J. J. (2009b). “Capacities and deflections of laterally

loaded shafts behind an MSE wall.” Journal of the

Transportation Research Board, 2116, 62-69.

Pierson, M. C., Parsons, R. L., Han, J., Brown, D. A., and

Thompson, R. W. (2008). Capacity of Laterally Loaded

Shafts Constructed behind the Face of a Mechanically

stabilized earth Block Wall. Final Report, Kansas

Department of Transportation, 237 pages, www.ksdot.

org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003782466. G WE’RE HERE

TO COLLECT…

WAT E R

800.242.WICK PH 704.238.9200 FX 704.296.0690 [email protected] Focusing Our Sites on Gaining Ground

americanwick.com

American Wick Drain provides proven, engineered, highly

cost effective alternatives to pipe and stone

systems. If you are looking for a more efficient way to collect,

transport and redirect water… AWD has the answer. We’re not just

down to earth, we’re… Focusing our Sites on Gaining Ground.

AWD Provides Solutions for:

VERTICAL WALLS

BRIDGE ABUTMENTS

CUT-OFF AND TRENCH DRAINS

RETENTION/DETENTION PONDS

HIGHWAY EDGE DRAINS

LANDSCAPING

PERIMETER DRAINS

CONCRETE CHANNELS

SLOPE DRAINS

TUNNEL AND BOX CULVERTS

CHIMNEY DRAINS

Increased Flow Rates

Reduces Hydrostatic Pressure

Green Friendly

80% Open Area vs. 3-5% with Perforated Pipe

Vertical and Horizontal Applications

The AWD

Advantage

Appleton, Wisconsin, USAPh: 800-548-3424; 1-920-738-1336

E: [email protected]

The Presto GEOWEB® system...is the ultimate economical and

environmental solution tochallenging slope and

geomembrane protectionproblems.

AP-5993

PRESTO

Original GEOWEB®

Call for FREE Preliminary Design Analysis

>> For more, search walls at




http://www.ksdot.org/publiclib/publicdoc.asp?ID=003782466

http://www.prestogeo.com



http://www.americanwick.com



GEO NEWS AND NOTES FROM AROUND THE WORLD

PANORAMA

Project HighlightsLocation: Green Point Stadium (“Cape Town Stadium”), Cape Town S.A.Cost: R4.4 billion (approx. USD $600 million)Joint Venture by: Murray & Roberts, WHBOArchitecture: GMP Architects, Louis Karol & Associates, Point ArchitectsGeogrids: Tensar International’s TriAx

Geogrids remedy site soils at World Cup stadium in South AfricaA systematic geogrid installation by South

African World Cup 2010 contractors over-

came poor load-bearing ground encoun-

tered on the new Green Point Stadium in

Cape Town (“Cape Town Stadium”).

Construction of the stadium, which

will play host to a World Cup semifinal

in July, was made problematic by the

highly variable soil inherent to this sce-

nic oceanside setting near the southern

tip of the continent.

The new 68,000-seat stadium was

originally designed set into a deep exca-

vation, to satisfy planning constraints

related to nearby buildings. Initial prob-

lems were encountered as a result of the

excavated material placed uncompacted

over surrounding spaces. So, when tem-

porary, construction haul roads for access

were routed over these areas, considerable

ground movement was experienced.

Because some of these roads would

later become permanent for stadium

access, the routes needed stabilization.

The decision-making became a choice

of removing 6-8m of the fill, replacing

it with properly compacted fill, and

bringing it up to level; or constructing

a mechanically stabilized earth (MSE)

road base with two layers of geogrid

and 400mm of locally-sourced, high-

quality aggregate.

The use of geogrids reduced both

time and cost and this solution was

deemed a success following extensive

use during an exceptionally difficult win-

ter. Even severe rain, including a 58mm

(2.25in.)/hour storm, resulted in mini-

mal settlement or deformation of the

new access road.

These results prompted the contrac-

tors to also utilize localized load-bearing

support for other parts of the stadium:

• Geogrids were installed to reduce

the required thickness of the proposed

aggregate fill in the upper layers of the

“Grand Staircase,” speeding the construc-

tion and saving on imported aggregate.

• At another point of the Grand

Staircase, geogrids were used to rein-

force the bedding under the steps and

reduce any differential settlement that

could compromise the structure and

require remediation.

• Finally, a geogrid mechanically

stabilized layer was installed beneath the

capping “jockey slabs” for the concrete

retaining walls, to mitigate any differ-

ential settlement between the slabs and

the fill where the stadium-site landscape

slopes away towards the sea.

Total construction time for the new

stadium was 33 months.

SourceConstruction News Portal, 4-16-2010

Geosynthetics editor, Ron Bygness, also

contributed to this article.

>> View more news at


0610GS_p50-Cv4.indd 500610GS_p50-Cv4.indd 50 5/27/10 7:13:10 AM5/27/10 7:13:10 AM



ASCE inducts new class of certified geo-professionalsThe American Society of Civil Engineers’

(ASCE) Academy of Geo-Professionals

inducted the newest class of recipients of

the Diplomate in Geotechnical Engineer-

ing (D.GE) certification.

The group of 41 engineers completed

a certification process that includes

graduate coursework, professional

experience, and an oral defense of the

application. The certifications were pre-

sented at a ceremony at the GeoFlorida

conference in West Palm Beach, Fla. on

Feb. 21, 2010.

The Academy of Geo-Professionals

was founded in October 2008 by the

members of ASCE’s Geo-Institute, with

the goal of providing advanced certifica-

tion to geotechnical engineers. The first

certifications were awarded in March

2009, and the number of engineers who

have earned the D.GE now numbers more

than 150.

In congratulating the inductees, Arlan

Rippe, P.E., D.GE, F. ASCE, president of

the Academy of Geo-Professionals said,

“Certification enhances the value of our

careers by demonstrating a commitment

to the elevated standards and improved

practice. It also reassures the public of the

competence of geo-professionals.”

See the complete list of Feb. 2010

D.GE inductees at: http://geosynthetics

magazine.com/articles/042210a.html

SourceASCE

Personnel updates at NAG, CooleyNorth American Green has named Gabe

Weaver to the new position of manager of

engineering and business development.

In a press release this spring, the com-

pany said it “has married innovation with

expertise in the erosion control industry,”

given Weaver’s background as a profes-

sional engineer plus his new master of

business administration (MBA) degree.

It will allow NAG to leverage his apti-

tude in civil engineering and his recently

earned MBA education to full potential,

the release stated.

Prior to his appointment, Weaver was

the manager of new products and tech-

nology development

for NAG for four

years and has been in

the civil engineering

industry for 11 years.

He will continue as

the technical liaison

to industry organiza-

tions such as the Ero-

sion Control Technol-

ogy Council (ECTC)

and the American

Society for Testing

Materials (ASTM).

At t h e C o ol e y

Group, David Shields

has been appointed

business develop-

ment manager for Cooley Engineered

Membranes. His responsibilities will

include identifying and developing new

markets for that division, according to a

company press release.

Citing his extensive background

with the aviation industry and as for-

mer director of business development

for a large specialty coating and lami-

nating organization, Shields has pre-

sented numerous papers at FAA Cabin

Fire Safety conferences, as well as at

TAPPI and Western Michigan Uni-

versity paper conferences. He has also

been published in Adhesives Age maga-

zine, the release stated.

SourcesNorth American Green, Cooley Group

In MemoriumBernard Myles

Editor’s note: Bernard Myles died on

April 25, 2010. The next day, Sam Allen

of TRI sent this note.

It is with a very heavy heart that I have

to tell you that Bernard Myles died last

night (4/25/2010), following his long

and courageous fight against cancer. His

wife Jan, has instructed that cards and

letters may be sent to her address at (Jan

Blackwood, 15 Greystones Drive, Reigate,

RH2 0HA, United Kingdom). Please do

not send e-mails to her.

As most of you know, Bernard’s con-

tributions to geosynthetics test standard-

ization span some 30 years. He had been

active in CEN and ISO leadership for

many years and brought his passion for

test procedures and standardization to

many ASTM Committee D35 meetings.

Bernie was also active in the Inter-

national Geosynthetics Society. He

was a member of the first IGS Council

formed in November 1983 and remained

on the Council until 1992. He was later

re-elected to the Council in 2000 and

remained until 2008.

There was truly only one Bernie.

He was never without confidence in his

spirited opinions and was always a great

sounding board for new and different

ideas. His lessons were numerous, his

passion rarely matched, and his contri-

butions enduring. He will be missed by

all of us.

Our thoughts are with his family at

this difficult time.

Please also see a personal tribute to Bernard

Myles on page 64.

Gabe Weaver

David Shields



http://geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/042210a.html


Short Course Announcements

The Geo-Institute of ASCE, the Industrial Fabrics Association

International (IFAI) and the Geosynthetic Materials Association

(GMA), and the North American Geosynthetics Society (NAGS) join

forces to present Geo-Frontiers 2011 at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel.

The conference is conducted under the auspices of the IGS and will

also feature the GRI-24 Conference on March 16.

Geo-Frontiers 2011 will feature full-day short courses on March

13 catering to beginners and advanced attendees. Each short

course off ers participants 8 PDHs.

INFORMATION FOR THE GEO-FRONTIERS 2011 CONFERENCE

GEO-FRONTIERS WATCH

Advanced Principles of Slope

Stability Analysis

INSTRUCTOR: Garry Gregory, Ph.D., P.E.,

D.GE, Adjunct Professor of Civil Engi-

neering, Oklahoma State University

This short course presents advanced

concepts of slope stability analyses,

with focus on exploration and recon-

naissance techniques, soil strength

including shear strength of fully-

softened clays, computer analysis of

soil slopes, and analysis of slopes with

stabilizing inclusions such as drilled

shafts, tiebacks, soil nails, geogrids,

and fi ber-reinforced soil.

Augured Cast-In-Place (ACIP) Piles:

Design, Construction, Load Test,

and Case Studies

INSTRUCTORS: C. Vipulanandan,

University of Houston; Tracy Brettmann,

Berkel & Co.; and Kenneth E. Tand,

Kenneth Tand & Associates

Augured cast-in-place (ACIP) piles, also

known as continuous fl ight auger (CFA),

are increasingly used for supporting

building, bridges, sound barrier walls,

and many other structures around the

world. Auger piles, with their load-

displacement behavior generally falling

between that of a drilled shaft and a

driven pile, need to be designed for

various applications. ACIP piles are

also socketed in rocks. Diff erent design

methods are available to estimate the

ultimate bearing capacity of ACIP piles

based upon in-situ soil properties, unit

skin friction, and unit end bearing.

Various types of ACIP piling systems

are currently in use, and designing and

constructing issues (installation process

and equipment), as well as specifi ca-

tions including the QA/QC procedures,

will be discussed. Load test results from

various geological formations and sev-

eral case studies, including a highway

bridge totally supported on ACIP piles,

will be presented.

For more information: www.geofrontiers11.org


http://www.geofrontiers11.org


Design and Construction of Bottom

Liner and Cover Systems

INSTRUCTOR: Richard Thiel, President,

Thiel Engineering

This course covers technologies

and materials used to design

and construct bottom liner and cover

systems for containment facilities

such as landfi lls, heap leach pads,

and ponds, including geomembrane

barriers as well as composite barriers

involving CCLs or GCLs. Participants

will be exposed to design principles

that apply to bottom liner and cover

systems including materials selection

and construction issues, leakage

and contaminant transport, lateral

drainage layer design strategies,

anchor trench design, exposed

geomembrane design, slope stability,

ponds, design details, and geoelectric

survey methods.

Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil

INSTRUCTORS: Robert Holtz, Ph.D., P.E.,

Professor Emeritus, University of

Washington; Jonathan Fannin, Ph.D.,

PEng, University of British Columbia

This short course focuses on advanced

treatment of geosynthetics for soil

reinforcement. Applications include

earth retaining structures, bridge

abutments, and fi ll slopes. Four main

topics are covered: material properties

and durability, principles of analysis,

codes of practice in design, and fi eld

performance data.

Instrumentation, Monitoring,

and Condition Assessment of

Foundations & Geo-Structures

INSTRUCTOR: Magued Iskander,

Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE, Polytechnic

Institute of NYU

This short course offers a

comprehensive introduction to

instrumentation and monitoring

of civil engineering projects

including planning, design of

instrumentation programs, and

performance of commonly used

sensors, data acquisition, signal

conditioning, error analysis,

information management, and case

histories. The session will combine

elements from civil, mechanical,

and electrical engineering together

with some management concepts.

Application of Geophysics to

Geotechnical Problems

INSTRUCTORS: Rick Hoover, PG,

M.ASCE, Dawood Engineering;

Phil Sirles, Zonge Geosciences Inc.

This program will present geophysical

methods, solutions provided by

those methods, and the concepts

necessary to specify the geophysical

survey parameters necessary to meet

the participants’ project objectives.

At the end of the course, attendees

should be able to: defi ne geophysics,

recognize available geophysical

planning resources and references,

be aware of which geophysical

methods will work and under what

settings, understand how diff erent

geophysical methods are used,

appreciate the ASTM-recommended

geophysical applications for given

problems, defi ne general parameters

for specifi c geophysical applications,

and identify the concepts necessary

to request or specify geophysical

services from a geophysicist.



http://www.fabinno.com


>>Continued from page 9 >>

Heavy equipmentEditor’s Note: In the February 2009 issue, a retaining walls article included photos with heavy

construction equipment. A reader asked a question about this and an answer is provided by

the wall builder.

To see the original article, search “reinforced wall project” at: www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com.

Comment RE: Heavy equipmentFrom: George S. | Jan. 28, 2010

I have seen these reinforced walls being used a lot in landscaping projects but it’s

amazing to see how this wall can support the heavy equipment surcharge. What

was the amount of live load surcharge considered for the heavy equipment?

ResponseFrom: Nick Jansson, P.E., LEED, AP, Soil Retention Systems Inc.,

Carlsbad, Calif.

Typically, we add no additional surcharge for heavy equipment. [This] wall system

was designed with enough form capacity to be built properly and is often used

for applications beyond landscaping, such as supporting roadways, houses,

hospitals, and schools. To safely support these kinds of applications, we have

developed a system with the ability to build concurrently with grading. (e.g., a

fully loaded Caterpillar 657E scraper with an operating weight of 271,270 lbs). The

live load resulting from construction equipment is accounted for in the system

development design and is not necessary in the structural design.

A young engineer, molasses, and failed sand drainsEditor’s Note: The October 2009 issue included lots of geosynthetics history, including this

article by Bob Koerner. The following comment was received at geosyntheticsmagazine.com.

To see the original article by Bob Koerner, search “molasses” at: www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com.

Comment: “A young engineer, molasses, and failed sand drains”From: Peter Davies, Kaytech South Africa | Nov. 1, 2009

Hi Bob and thank you for a thought-provoking lesson. I am forwarding it to a

number of acquaintances in the geotechnical field in South Africa.

In my younger days (I’m 63 now!), I worked for around 10 years at Frankipile,

and I spent many an hour down pile shafts being taught the dangers of smear

by that doyen of geotechnics in SA, the late Prof. Jere Jennings who studied at

MIT under Karl Terzaghi.

With that background, and the fact the company I now work for manufactures band

drains among other geosynthetics, I think that your belief that smear may have

caused the failure of the sand piles at Wilmington is well-founded. It seems incredible

that a thin layer of smear could cause such a resistance to flow, but it’s quite possible.

Thanks again. This sort of practical experience is invaluable and it is good that

Geosynthetics is bringing it to a wider global audience.

Best Regards. G

Comment on any

article in Geosynthetics at:


OR

Send a letter to the editor at:

[email protected]

Contact us at www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

FROM OUR READERS








Andrew Aho

Managing Director

+1 651 225 6907 or

800 636 5042

[email protected]

GMA is dedicated to

our members’ success.

GMA actively identifi es,

assesses, analyzes

and acts upon market

growth opportunities

and issues that aff ect

its member companies.

The activities of

the association are

proactive in nature and

center on fi ve areas:

» Engineering support

» Business

development

» Education

» Government relations

» Geosynthetics

industry recognition

www.gmanow.com

Geosynthetics: The present and perspectives from Mexico

GMA NEWS

GEOSYNTHETIC MATERIALS ASSOCIATION

By Andrew Aho

The Mexican economy has been

battered by both the worldwide

financial crisis and the effects of a steep

downturn in the U.S., Mexico’s largest

trading partner. And if that was not enough,

Mexico’s economy absorbed another blow

last year with its virtual shutdown during

the swine flu pandemic.

A gathering of the geosynthetic

leadership in Mexico City in March set out

to identify how the organization can best

help grow the market for geosynthetics

in Mexico. Granted, GMA Mexico can-

not address all of the problems with the

Mexican economy, but it can take steps

to insure that geosynthetic materials

are not left unnoticed as the Mexican

economy recovers.

GMA Mexico identified two critical

issues needed to ensure growth:

• The development of clear geosynthetic

specifications acceptable for govern-

ment agencies.

• Expansion of geosynthetic materials

education.

Mexico is now experiencing what

many U.S. construction markets have

already experienced: Government speci-

fiers are cautious about using geosynthet-

ics in various applications because the

industry lacks acceptable specifications

(“specs,” in Mexico, are called “norms”

or standards). And furthermore, speci-

fiers lack familiarity with geosynthetic

materials because engineering education

regarding geosynthetics is sparse.

GMA Mexico, under the leadership

of Oscar Couttolenc, has developed a

working group to address the issue of

absence of well-known and well-regarded

specifications. The current specification

templates that this working group is using

are the AASHTO M288 specs that were

developed by GMA and AASHTO for

use in state transportation applications in

the U.S. An objective now for the Mexi-

can working group is to develop consen-

sus specs and then go about marketing

the specs to the federal transportation

agency, the Instituto Meicano del Trans-

pote (IMT).

GMA Mexico has brought geosynthetic

education directly to the engineers

and specifi ers through a series

seminars throughout Mexico.

Geotextile tubes filled with sand work as foundations

and support beds for oil pipes at the Dos Bocas

facilities for Petroleos Mexicanos in Tabasco, Mexico.



http://www.gmanow.com



An second working group is address-

ing the lack of geosynthetic education at

the university level and within the existing

engineering community. National Auton-

omous University of Mexico is one of the

largest higher education institutes in the

world with more than 300,000 students

(with 18,000 students enrolled in the engi-

neering department). These students are

targeted for hands-on geosynthetic edu-

cation. The GMA Mexico working group

is writing a workbook that will eventually

become a text for civil engineering stu-

dents and help expose them to geosyn-

thetic materials and applications.

GMA Mexico has brought geosynthetic

education directly to the engineers and

specifiers through a series of one- and

two-day seminars throughout Mexico.

Recently, GMA Mexico, in conjunction

with the IGS Mexico chapter and the Socie-

dad Mexicana De Ingenieria Geotecnica

held the conference Geosynthetics: Present

and Perspectives in Mexico. The three-day

event was held March 10-12 in Mexico

City. The conference featured two short

courses, a day and a half exhibit hall, and

10 technical sessions. A keynote address

was delivered by Dr. Jorge Zornberg.

For more information:

Manufacturers, distributors, fabricators,

installers, or consultants interested in

participating with GMA Mexico can

reach Oscar Couttolenc at gmamexico@

prodigy.net.mx.

geosyntheticsmarket report

The most comprehensive and accurate measure of the

geosynthetic market in the U.S. and Canada.

This report quantifi es the production of:Geotextiles • Geogrids • Drainage Composites • Geomembranes

It also includes a comprehensive Manufacturers Directory.

For information about purchasing this report, contact Andrew Aho at [email protected] or 800 636 5042.

GMA NEWS

0310GEOsubform.indd 1 3/19/10 8:10:12 AM

>> See the full EPA announcement, with links,

regarding the new coal-ash regulations:


articles/050410.html


http://www.geosyntheticsmagazine.com/articles/050410.html




Title (please check):❑ Owner/Corporate executive❑ Chief/Staff Engineer❑ Geotechnical Engineer❑ Civil Engineer❑ Research/Development Professional❑ Other (please specify)_______________

Type of Business (please check):❑ Engineering Firm / Engineer in Private Practice❑ Contractor❑ Geosynthetic Installer❑ Installation/Fabrication Equipment Supplier❑ Geosynthetic Producer/Distributor❑ Other (please specify)_______________

Fax: +1 651-631-9334 Phone: 800-208-6129Mail: IFAI, SDS-12-2108, PO Box 86, Minneapolis, MN 55486-2108Offer ends December 31, 2010. Please allow 4-6 weeks for shipment of fi rst issue. Offer valid for new subscribers only.

Name ___________________________________________________________

Company ________________________________________________________

Address__________________________________________________________

City _____________________________________________________________

State _________________________________________ Zip _______________

Phone ___________________________________________________________

Fax _____________________________________________________________

Email ____________________________________________________________

Please Print.

❑ $99 $59 /2 Years U.S.A.

❑ $129 $69 /2 Years Canada (U.S. funds)

❑ $179 $99 /2 Years Other Int'l (U.S. funds)

2 years for the price of 1

Leading expert information onNew products/innovative applications• Detailed case study analysis• Global industry topics & trends•

Solutions that reinforce the earth

❏ Bill me❏ Check Enclosed $ ___________________❏ Credit Card Payment ❍ Visa ❍ Master Card ❍ Amex ❍ Discover

Card Number ____________________________________________________

Expire Date ______________________________________________________

Card Holder Name _______________________________________________

Signature _________________________________ Date __________________

SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIILLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD

fffffffffffffoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr bbbbbbbbbbbbbeeeeeeeeeeeeeessssssssssssssssstttttttttttttt tttttttttttttteeeeeeeeeeeeccccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhhnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnniiiiiiiiiiiiiiiicccccccccccccccccccaaaaaaaaaaaaalllllllllllll

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttttttttttiiiiiiiiiiiccccccccccccccclllllllllllleeeeeeeeeeeeeee

0310GEOsubform.indd 1 3/19/10 8:10:12 AM0610GS_p50-Cv4.indd 570610GS_p50-Cv4.indd 57 5/27/10 7:13:25 AM5/27/10 7:13:25 AM

https://www.ifaipublications.com/geo/subscribe

For more information please contact us» Andrew Aho, Managing Director» Phone: +1 651 225 6907 or 800 636 5042 » E-mail: [email protected]» www.gmanow.com

GMA is dedicated to our members’ success.

GMA actively identifi es, assesses, analyzes and acts upon market growth opportunities and issues that aff ect its member companies. Th e activities of the association are proactive in nature and center on fi ve areas:» Engineering support» Business development» Education» Government relations» Geosynthetics industry recognition

Geosynthetic MaterialsAssociation

Is your company serious about thegeosynthetic marketplace?

Become part of the trade association dedicated to the growth of the industry.

Benefit Executive General Distributor

Determine association direction, budget allocation & other voting matters

▲

Meet & develop relationships with federal policy makers

▲

Influence content of state & federal geosynthetics guidance documents

▲

Speak & instruct users about geosynthetics at construction industry events

▲

Represent industry on AASHTO NTPEP product panels

▲

Become an officer of GMA ▲

Participate in GMA Executive Council meetings & network with industry leaders

▲

Complementary banner ad on gmanow.com ▲

Participate in GMA shipping survey & receive survey data (manufacturers only)

▲ ▲

Complementary product chart listing in Geosynthetics Specifier's Guide issue

▲ ▲

Complementary Company Listing on gmanow.com

▲ ▲ ▲

Advertising discounts inGeosynthetics magazine

▲ ▲ ▲

Participate in GMA General Membership meetings & network with industry leaders

▲ ▲ ▲

Receive Industry News Flashes ▲ ▲ ▲

Subscription to Geosynthetics magazine ▲ ▲ ▲

Complementary company listing in Geosynthetics Specifier's Guide issue

▲ ▲ ▲

Geosynthetics conference discounts ▲ ▲ ▲

Receive minutes from ExecutiveCouncil meetings

▲ ▲ ▲

IFAI membership ▲ ▲ ▲





GSI NEWS

Bob Koerner, Ph.D., P.E.,

NAE, is director of the

Geosynthetic Institute

in Folsom, Pa., and is a

member of Geosynthetics

magazine’s Editorial

Advisory Committee.

GSI: +1 610 522 8440,

www.geosynthetic-institute.org

Lab ImmersionD5323

Field ImmersionD5496

Test Procedure to Evaluate

GeomembranesD5747

GeogridsD6213

GeotextilesD6389

GeonetsD6388

Geopipe(See Comm. F-19)

ASTM Sequence of Standards to

Evaluate Chemical Compatibility

of Geosynthetics to Liquids

(i.e., the alternative to EPA 9090)

Purging the geosynthetics system of dated test methods and specs

GSI’s Mission is to

develop and transfer

knowledge, assess and

critique geosynthetics,

and provide services

to the member

organizations.

GEOSYNTHETICINSTITUTE

By Bob Koerner

In May 1998, Maryann Gorman wrote a

commentary in ASTM Standardization

News entitled “How Specifications

Live Forever.”

She began the article by explaining

how standard gauge railroad track spacing

in North America is 4ft-8.5in. (1.4351m).

It seems that this precise dimension dates

from Roman times because “the Impe-

rial chariots were made to be just wide

enough to accommodate the back-ends

of two war horses.”

From a geosynthetics perspective, let’s

work between agencies (ASTM and EPA)

in that there is currently a series of ASTM

standards that are intended to replace

the EPA 9090 method for determining

chemical compatibility of geomembranes

to various candidate liquids. In fact, more

than 15 years ago, Bob Landreth (long

retired from EPA) requested that we

develop an alternative standard since

EPA was not in the standards setting and

distribution business.

The current series of incubation

practices and subsequent test methods

follows. It is comprehensive and much

more than the original approach. Let us

all use this sequence of ASTM standards

and please stop requesting EPA 9090.

In a somewhat similar vein of

between agency test methods, the Fed-

eral Test Method 101C for evaluating

puncture resistance of geomembranes

is another antiquated test method. The

closest ASTM replacement is D4833

which uses a beveled 5/16-in. (7.94-mm)

probe instead of a tapered point. This

was intentionally done since the tapered

FTM point underestimates scrim rein-

forced geomembranes by having the

probe simply sliding between sets of

adjacent yarns. To our knowledge, cur-

rent geomembrane specifications all use

ASTM D4833. Let’s stop with the FTM

101C requirement.

Completely within ASTM Committee

D35 on Geosynthetics, there are many

meaningful test method changes that the

industry either does not know about or

is reluctant to adopt. Some of them are

as follows:

The old geomembrane ply adhesion

tests (D413 and F904) have been upgraded

and replaced by D7005.



http://www.geosynthetic-institute.org


GSI NEWS

The old geomembrane dogbone tension

test (D638) has been upgraded and replaced

by D6693.

The very old HDPE geomembrane

stress crack test of D1693 has been com-

pletely replaced by D5397.

The old shear and peel tests of

geomembrane seams (D4437 and D4545)

have been replaced by D6214 (for PVC)

and D6392 (for olefins).

The coated fabric test methods

embodied in D751 are completely passé

as is D3088 for PVC.

Regarding laboratory weathering

devices for geosynthetics, the industry’s

current choice is either the Xenon Arc

(ASTM D4355) or the Ultraviolet Fluo-

rescent (ASTM D7238). Following is a

comparison table of approximate initial

and maintenance costs of these contrast-

ing incubation devices. In determining

Cost Comparison Between Laboratory Weathering Devices

ITEM XENON ARC UV-FLUORESCENT

Initial cost $70,000-$80,000 $10,000-$15,000

Tubes/bulbs $15,000/year $300/year

Power cost $5,000/year $400/year

Water cost $3,000/year none

Sewer cost $500/year none

end-of-life testing, the choice is obvious

to us. That said, the entrenched status

of the Xenon Arc method is difficult to

purge from user specifications.

Picking on specifications rather

than test methods, we cannot neglect

commentary on NSF #54. This series of

specifications for 16 different geomem-

branes began in ca. 1980 and was last

published in 1995 by the National Sanita-

tion Foundation, now NSF International.

Shortly thereafter they simply stopped

all geomembrane specification activ-

ity, including distribution of the docu-

ment itself. Even further, some of the

geomembranes addressed in NSF #54

are not available and many others have

been developed and are commercially

available. Yet, we continue to see refer-

ence made to NSF #54 Specifications. It is

time to stop using NSF #54 because there

are viable generic specifications available

for use for the majority of commercially

available geomembranes.

We are sure you have some “golden

oldies” of your own, but thought we would

get these several items off of our chests.

Thanks for listening in this regard.

–Bob and George Koerner, GSI


http://www.erosionblankets.com

JUNE

4th Geotechnical/Seoul–Ocean Construction & 7th Ground Improvement Techniques

23–25 JUNE | SEOUL, KOREA

The recurring twin international conferences on

geoenvironmental and geotechnical engineering are

scheduled for June 23–25 in Seoul, South Korea.

GT-2010 “Green Ocean Construction” includes top-

ics such as: LEED, natural disaster warnings, waste

management, beach restoration, aquaculture,

desalinization, and others.

GI-2010 “Ground Improvement Techniques” in-

cludes topics such as: soil stabilization and rein-

forcement, compaction of granular soils, grouting,

environmental aspects, and others.

To register or for more information: cipremie@

singnet.com.sg, www.cipremier.com

AUGUST

Earth Retention-2010

1–4 AUGUST | BELLEVUE, WASH.

ER Conference-3 will be at the Hyatt Regency

Bellevue Aug. 1–4.

Organized by the Earth Retaining Structures Com-

mittee of ASCE’s Geo-Institute, the every-20-years

event follows ER-1 (1970) and ER-2 (1990) that were

held in Ithaca, N.Y. ER2010 will bring together a

broad community of geo-professionals working on

retention structures using a wide range of support

systems with comprehensive coverage of develop-

ments during the past 20 years.

Conference coverage is diverse, including case

histories and practice-oriented papers, recent

research findings, innovative technologies, and the

emerging arts across many disciplines. Professional

engineers, researchers, specialty contractors, regu-

lators, educators, and students will interact across a

range of technical sessions, tutorials, short courses,

discussions, and equipment demonstrations.

For more information: www.er2010.org

StormCon 2010

1–5 AUGUST | SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS

The annual Stormwater Pollution Prevention

Conference is at the JW Marriott Hill Country

Resort & Spa.

The event features an exhibit hall, pre-conference

workshops, nationwide certification courses, and

concurrent technical sessions.

To register, exhibit, or for more information:

http://www.stormcon.com

SEPTEMBER

3rd International Symposium on Geosynthetic Clay Liners

15–16 SEPTEMBER | FORTRESS

MARIENBERG | WÜRZBURG, GERMANY

Topics for this conference include: application/

case studies, durability/lifetime, laboratory test-

ing, performance, and regulations/approvals.

The Scientific Committee: Robert M. Koerner (GSI),

Nathalie Touze-Foltz (Cemagref ), and Helmut

Zanzinger (SKZ).

The Organizing Committee: Irina Bender (SKZ)

and Norbert Schlör (SKZ).


www.gbrc-wuerzburg.com

ASDSO’s Dam Safety ‘10

19–23 SEPTEMBER | SEATTLE

The conference, associated meetings, and tech-

nical sessions will be at the Washington State

Convention Center in downtown Seattle.

Hotel reservations in the ASDSO group block are

available until Aug. 24 at the Grand Hyatt Seattle

(www.grandseattle.hyatt.com) or the Hyatt-Olive

8 (www.olive8.hyatt.com). Or call the Passkey

reservation service (888 421 1442) to make a

reservation at either hotel.

Registration information is now available.

For more information: www.damsafety.org

RemTech Expo 2010

21–23 SEPTEMBER | FERRARA, ITALY

The 4th edition of Remediation Technologies

Exhibition will be held at the Ferrara Exhibition

and Conference Centre in Ferrara, Italy. The event

is organized by the Ferrara Fiere Congress and by

coordinator, Dr. Daniele Cazzuffi.

The RemTech expo will feature: remediation tech-

nologies; removal and encapsulation of asbestos;

characterization, investigation, and instruments for

analysis, inspection, and monitoring; brownfields

and real estate; landfills, and dredging activities.


+39 0532 909495 900713, info@

remtechexpo.com, www.remtechexpo.com

OCTOBER

2010 Global Waste Management Symposium

3–6 OCTOBER | SAN ANTONIO

The Global Waste Management Symposium

(GWMS) is a three-day event serving the needs of

the landfill community.

The GWMS offers a technical sessions forum for the

peer-reviewed presentation of applied and funda-

mental research, case studies, and policy analysis.

Among the 2010 GWMS technical session topics:

biocovers, bioreactor case studies, moisture con-

tent in bioreactors, landfill siting issues, landfill

liners and covers, landfill cover performance, final

closure of landfills, leachate management, and

solar energy for landfills.


www.wastesymposium.com/gws2010/

public/enter.aspx

Tailings and Mine Waste ‘10

17–20 OCTOBER | VAIL, COLO.

This event is the next in a series of symposia on

mill tailings management started at Colorado

State University in 1978.

The conference objective is to provide a forum

for presenting the state-of-the-art regarding mill

tailings and mine waste, and to discuss current

and future issues facing the mining and environ-

mental communities.

The scope of the conference includes: mill tail-

ings, waste rock, ore, and other mined materials,

containment systems (including geosynthetic

and composite liners, leak detection and collec-

tion systems, and groundwater protection), and

permitting issues.


www.tailingsandminewaste.org

IFAI Expo Americas 2010

27–29 OCTOBER | ORLANDO, FLA.

The largest specialty fabrics trade show in the

Americas, the annual IFAI Expo for 2010 is at the

Orange County Convention Center in Orlando.

New for 2010: “Advanced Textiles–Blending Tech-

nology and Materials.”

To register, exhibit, or for more information

on exhibiting, sponsoring, or speaking at the

show: www.ifaiexpo.com

CALENDAR



http://www.cipremier.com

http://www.er2010.org

http://www.stormcon.com

http://www.gbrc-wuerzburg.com

http://www.grandseattle.hyatt.com

http://www.olive8.hyatt.com

http://www.damsafety.org

http://www.remtechexpo.com

http://www.wastesymposium.com/gws2010/public/enter.aspx

http://www.tailingsandminewaste.org

http://www.ifaiexpo.com






NOVEMBER

6th International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics (6ICEG)8–12 NOVEMBER | NEW DELHI, INDIA

The Indian Geotechnical Society (IGS) will host

the 6th International Congress on Environmental

Geotechnics (6ICEG) in New Delhi Nov. 8–12, on

behalf of the International Society for Soil Me-

chanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE).

More than 400 delegates, including 250 from

abroad, will gather to discuss the latest geotech-

nical developments.

The 6th Congress is titled “Environmental Geo-

technics for Sustainable Development,” with

these eight technical themes: MSWs and landfills;

slurry ponds; contaminated land, groundwa-

ter, and abandoned landfills; geosynthetics and

other new materials; sustainability—professional

practice and education; geohazards—disaster

mitigation and management; testing, monitor-

ing, and performance evaluation; physical and

numerical modeling.

The Congress will have four days of technical

sessions (Monday–Thursday) and one day of field

visits (Friday). The Congress will be held in a five-

star equivalent environment, the India Habitat

Centre in New Delhi.

For more information: www.6iceg.org

Venice 2010: 3rd International Symposium on Energy from Biomass and Waste

8–11 NOVEMBER | VENICE, ITALY

Organized by the not-for-profit International

Waste Working Group (IWWG), this event aims to

provide a platform to encourage integrated and

sustainable waste management and to promote

practical scientific development in the field.

Symposium topics include: potential energy

sources, renewable fuels, anaerobic digestion,

refuse-derived fuel, thermal treatments, policies

and legal aspects, new research and developments.

The event will also include presentations, poster

sessions, a small exhibition, and technical tours.


www.venicesymposium.it,

[email protected]

3rd Geosynthetics Middle East9–10 NOVEMBER | ABU DHABI

The theme for this 3rd international conference is

“Waterproofing Systems and Reinforced Structures.”

Conference topics include: polymer/product

development, geopipes, geomembranes,

waterproofing membranes, geotextiles, geogrids,

geocomposites, geocells, clay liners, applications

and case studies,landfills, reservoirs, mining, bridge

abutments, road construction, welding/sealing,

durability, testing, regulations/ standards.

For exhibition and sponsorship opportunities, contact:

Irina Bender, +49-931-4104-436, [email protected].

Venue and accommodations at Le Méridien

Abu Dhabi. Contact: Hisham Ishak, LeMéridien

Abu Dhabi, P.O. Box 46066, UAE; hisham.ishak@

lemeridien.com.

For more information: http://www.skz.de

1st GSI–Asia Conference

16–18 NOVEMBER | TAICHUNG, TAIWAN

This conference will take place at the Windsor

Hotel in Taichung, Taiwan.

The theme is “Geosynthetics in Infrastructure

Applications,” with main topics including: me-

chanically stabilized earth structures, coastal and

hydraulic engineering, erosion control and sus-

tainable engineering, and transportation and

pavement engineering.

To register or for more information: http://

gsi-asia2010npust.edu.tw

Waterproof Membranes–‘10

NOV. 30–DEC. 2 | COLOGNE, GERMANY

The 2010 international business and technology

conference on waterproofing in roofing and

geomembrane liners is at the Maritim Hotel in Co-

logne, organised by Applied Market Information

Ltd. (AMI). The focus is on roofing membranes

and geomembranes.

The opening evening is a welcome cocktail recep-

tion and registration, followed by a two-day pro-

gram of expert presentations. A specialist exhibi-

tion runs concurrently with this conference.

Waterproof Membranes 2010 provides a global

forum for all companies involved in waterproofing

membranes, including end-users, specifiers, archi-

tects, expert installers, manufacturers, researchers,

and suppliers to the industry.

To register, exhibit, or for more information

about this conference, contact Jenny Skinner,

email: [email protected]; +44 117 924 9442.

MARCH

Geo-Frontiers

13–16 MARCH, 2011 | DALLAS

The Geo-Institute of ASCE, the Industrial Fabrics

Association International (IFAI), the Geosynthetic

Materials Association (GMA), the North American

Geosynthetics Society (NAGS), and the Geosyn-

thetic Research Institute join forces to present

Geo-Frontiers/2011 at the Sheraton Dallas Hotel.

Billed as the top geotechnical event of the year, it

reprises a similar event from six years ago—Geo-

Frontiers/2005 in Austin, Texas.

Read more at the Geo-Frontiers Watch section in

this issue, page 52.


www.geofrontiers11.com

IFAI Expo Asia

22–25 MARCH, 2011 | SINGAPORE

There is a tremendous output and consumption of

specialty fabrics in the Asia-Pacific region. The cur-

rent trade shows in India and China focus almost

exclusively on the disposable nonwoven industry.

IFAI Expo Asia 2011 is the first major event in

the region that specifically targets end-product

fabricators who use all types of materials: woven,

nonwoven, knit, and composite textiles.

IFAI Expo Asia 2011 will feature a trade exhibition,

attracting three targeted audiences:

• those involved in the supply chain seeking net-

working and partnership opportunities.

• fabricators of finished products in applications

such as medical, automotive, construction, safety,

military, recreation, and structures.

• those who have design, application, and market

influence, such as government purchasing agen-

cies, civil engineers, and architects.

Besides the trade exhibition, the four-day event will

feature world-class educational symposiums for 10

specific niche end-markets for specialty fabrics.

For more information: www.ifaiexpoasia.com

CALENDAR



http://www.6iceg.org

http://www.venicesymposium.it



http://www.skz.de

http://gsi-asia2010npust.edu.tw

http://gsi-asia2010npust.edu.tw


http://www.geofrontiers11.com

http://www.ifaiexpoasia.com




The Geosynthetic Materials

Association actively identifies,

assesses, analyzes and acts upon

market growth opportunities

and issue that affect its member

companies. The activities of

the association are proactive in

nature and focus on five areas:

Engineering support • Business

development • Education •

Government relations • Geo-

synthetic industry promotion

VISIT www.gmanow.com

CONTACT Andrew Aho [email protected] 800 636 5042.

The bolded advertisers are

exhibitors at Geo-Frontiers 2011.

Be sure to visit their booths at the

show, which will be held at the

Sheraton Dallas in Dallas, Texas on

13–16 March 2011.

For more information on

Geo-Frontiers 2011, please visit

www.geofrontiers11.com.

SEE US ONLINEwww.geosyntheticsmagazine.com

This magazine is made possible

by the ongoing investment of the

advertisers you see here. We thank

our readers for supporting them

throughout the year.

For advertising rates and

information, call Shelly Arman

at 800 436 2408.

IFAI member

GMA Geosynthetic Materials Association member Tensar Iternational Corporation ✦ GMAThrace-LINQ, Inc. ✦ GMA

ADVERTISER INDEX

41 ACE Geosynthetics ✦ GMA www.geoace.com

Cv2 Agru America ✦ GMA 800 373 2478

www.agruamerica.com

49 American Wick Drain Corp. 800 242 9425

www.americanwick.com

5 Atarfil +34 958 439 200

www.atarfil.com

41 Carlisle SynTec 800 479 6832

www.carlislegeomembrane.com

21 CETCO Lining Technologies ✦ GMA +1 215 357 0630

www.cetco.com

25 DEMTECH Services Inc. 888 324 9353

www.demtech.com

60 East Coast Erosion Blankets 800 582 4005

www.erosionblankets.com

53 Fabinno www.fabinno.com

23 Fiberweb ✦ GMA 800 441 2760

www.TyparGeotextiles.com

31 Firestone Specialty Products ✦ GMA 800 428 4442

www.firestonesp.com/ifai7

Cv3 Geo-Frontiers 2011 www.geofrontiers11.com

56 Geosynthetics Market Report 800 636 5042

58 GMA 800 636 5042

15 GSE Lining Technology Inc. ✦ GMA www.gseworld.com

Cv4 Huesker, Inc. ✦ GMA 800 942 9418

www.huesker.com

37 Insulfoam 800 248 5995

www.insulfoam.com

47 Leister 800 694 1472

www.leister.com

19 Maccaferri Inc. ✦ GMA 800 638 7744

www.maccaferri-usa.com

7 Mekamore 82 31 718 0326

www.mekastone.com

11 NAUE America Inc. ✦ GMA +1 404 504 6295

www.naue.com

47 Plastatech Engineering 800 892 9358

www.plastatech.com

39 Plastika Kritis +302810 3089500

www.plastikakritis.com

49 Presto Products 800 548 3424

www.prestogeo.com

1 Strata Systems Inc. ✦ GMA 800 680 7750

www.geogrid.com

32, 33 TenCate Geosynthetics ✦ GMA 800 685 9990

www.mirafi.com

2 Tensar International Corp ✦ GMA 888 828 5007

www.tensarcorp.com/MESA_GEO







http://www.geoace.com

http://www.agruamerica.com

http://www.americanwick.com

http://www.atarfil.com

http://www.carlislegeomembrane.com

http://www.cetco.com

http://www.demtech.com

http://www.erosionblankets.com

http://www.fabinno.com

http://www.TyparGeotextiles.com

http://www.firestonesp.com/ifai7


http://www.gseworld.com

http://www.huesker.com

http://www.insulfoam.com

http://www.leister.com

http://www.maccaferri-usa.com

http://www.mekastone.com

http://www.naue.com

http://www.plastatech.com

http://www.plastikakritis.com

http://www.prestogeo.com

http://www.geogrid.com


http://www.tensarcorp.com/MESA_GEO



Bernard Myles was my friendWednesday, April 28, 2010

By Pete Stevenson

GeoFront11SaveDateAd_FP_0310.indd 1 3/18/10 2:59:32 PM

FINAL INSPECTION

Bernard Myles was my friend. We met in 1980 in

New Orleans at an organizing meeting for the IFAI

geotextile committee where he was the only sensible

voice. During the next 30 years he became my friend and

he remained a sensible voice. He was a teacher, a guide, a

mentor, and a critic. Bernard was a scientist, an engineer,

a warrior, and a superb friend. We shared so many

adventures I cannot recount them all, else this note would

become a bore rather than a tribute. We worked together

in the exhibit hall at the 2nd ICG in Las

Vegas and, of course, that was when the

IGS was conceived. I became a mem-

ber of the IGS in Brussels the next year

at Bernard’s insistence and we worked

together in industry and in the IGS

until last year when he became so ill.

Bernard Myles was a founding

member of the IGS and attended the

Paris Conference, the organizing meet-

ing in Las Vegas, and served on the first

council. Bernard served 16 years on

the council and attended so very many

council meetings and conferences.

His dedication to the IGS is unquestioned. He

assumed the role of the guardian of the interests of the

corporate membership, which was a role he played both

as a council member and also during the period he was

not a council member. Bernard was a burr under the sad-

dle, never allowing an issue to be avoided, always requir-

ing that the right thing be done. The IGS is indebted to

Bernard Myles.

Following our meeting in New Orleans a 30-year

chronology must include geotextile tubes in Venice

and high-strength geotextile runway extension follow-

ing Allan Haliburton’s lead at Washington National

(now Reagan) both in 1982–83, which was followed by

high-strength fabrics in U.S., Finland, and around the

world. Over the following years we pursued engineer-

ing, manufacturing, high-strength seams, and unique

solutions that included continuous filament nonwoven

geotextiles in Switzerland, soil nailing in the U.K., Cali-

fornia, and Colorado, and polyester geogrids once again

in the U.S.

Along the way we were team members in the days of

Burlington and ICI, and then he worked for me while at

James River. We were partners in Acme STW and later I

worked for him in Soil Nailing and then he worked for

me at Xtex. Regardless of organization charts, in reality

we were always partners. It was a rich and rewarding

friendship, and one that I would wish for anyone.

Bernard Myles held strong views and expressed them

often and with passion. He never ducked a fight and there

were many occasions in which we did not fully agree and

we had some lively debates.

Our solution was to run and we ran together many

times, in the Apennines, in London, on the Washington

mall, in Paris and Brussels and Milan, and a host of

places I omit, and near our homes as we visited together

innumerable times. Running was special because we

had to concentrate to communicate, breathing being an

impediment to excess wordiness. We did argue a great

deal in restaurants, trains and cars, and cars had a unique

effect. We could become so involved as to lose track of

conditions and on several occasions one of us received a

not-so-friendly instruction to pay more attention from

local law enforcement.

In between arguments on politics, technology,

strategy, and nonsense we wrote a business plan while

snowbound in the Alps, lived on the economy in

Singapore during the conference there, shot steel rods into

the earth in Oregon, and generally had a great time.

Bernard was my best man. Bernard’s children, Doris

and Philip, spent time at my home and my son Michael

spent a summer under Bernard’s watchful eye in a test-

ing lab in the U.K. My youngest, Tara, visited Sweden

in the summer with Bernard’s family.

We were three weeks different in age, I the elder … I

miss him now and I will miss him forever. I am so sorry to

say goodbye. For me, the world is a lesser place today.

He was more than my friend, he was my brother.

Bernard Myles

Pete Stevenson


Where engineering design and construction cometogether with dynamic products and applications

Advances in Geotechnical Engineering

www.geofrontiers11.com

Th e objective of the Event is to share new developments in

geotechnical engineering technologies. Attendees will be

exposed to the latest state-of-the-art-and-practice as applied

to geotechnical engineering.

MARK YOUR CALENDAR

FOR THE GEOTECHNICAL

EVENT OF 2011

Under the auspices ofGeo-Frontiers 2011 is co-organized by Includes GRI-24 Annual Conference

GeoFront11SaveDateAd_FP_0310.indd 1 3/18/10 2:59:32 PM

0610GS_p50-Cv4.indd Cv30610GS_p50-Cv4.indd Cv3 5/27/10 7:13:38 AM5/27/10 7:13:38 AM


Huesker’s eco-friendly Geosynthetics fit nicelyunder our corporate umbrella.

800.942.9418 huesker.com 704.588.5500

Engineering with Geosynthetics

Huesker’s ISO 9001 certified line of quality eco-

friendly Geosynthetics are known for strength and

long-lasting durability. That’s important to you and the

planet because today’s designs call for reinforcement

products that ensure your project will endure well

into the future. It’s good to know when you’re trying

to keep costs from raining down on your project.

Applications for Embankments Walls Slopes Airport Runways

Canal Liners Landfill Capping Systems Encased Columns

Mining Roadways Railroads Levees

Geogrids Geotextiles Geocomposites

0610GS_p50-Cv4.indd Cv40610GS_p50-Cv4.indd Cv4 5/27/10 7:13:39 AM5/27/10 7:13:39 AM

http://www.huesker.com

Under the Stormwater green roof the Wrigley Reservoir · the Wrigley Reservoir Geosynthetic ......

Documents

Transcript of Under the Stormwater green roof the Wrigley Reservoir · the Wrigley Reservoir Geosynthetic ......