Geocell Design Principles

August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6

1
Copyright 2004 GFR Magazine.
Reprinted with permission of Industrial Fabrics Association International. 1
Late 2004 opportunities
The latter months of the year offer many con-
struction and materials conferences.
2630 September, Dam Safety 2004,
Phoenix. Organized by the Association of
State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), the an-
nual Dam Safety conference gives consulting
engineers, water management professionals,
regulators, construction industry representa-
tives and many others a way into the deeper
level discussions, trends and concerns in
contemporary dam design and operation.
For more information, contact Association
of State Dam Safety Officials (ASDSO), 450
Old Vine St., Fl. 2, Lexington, KY 40507-
1544; +1 859 257 5140, fax +1 859 323
1958, e-mail info@damsafety.org, Web site
www.damsafety.org.
2630 September, MINExpo Interna-
tional 2004, Las Vegas. Global raw material
demand has risen sharply during the past
few years. The trend has revitalized the min-
ing industry, and presented engineers with
many new design opportunities and environ-
mental challenges.
For more information, contact Hall-Erickson Inc., 98
E. Naperville Rd., Westmont, IL 60559-1559; +1 630 434
7779, fax +1 630 434 1216, e-mail minexpo@heiexpo.
com, Web site www.minexpo.com.
2327 October, GeoQuebec 2004, Quebec City.
The 57th Canadian Geotechnical Conference offers
more than 400 papers, numerous discussions and
chances to sample materials and evaluate services
up close. The event brings together a broad swatch of
engineering disciplines.
For more information on the geosynthetic sessions,
contact Eric Blond (SAGEOS/CTT Group), +1 450
771-4608, fax +1 450 778 3901, e-mail ericb@sageos.
ca. For information regarding the general conference,
please write to info@geoquebec2004.org, or visit the
Opportunities, ownership and education
Geocells, nonwoven geotextiles and drainage
composites being installed at the new Sofia
airport, Bulgaria.
Reminder: 2005 Specifiers Guide
The deadline is rapidly approaching for submis-
sions of product data to the 2005 Specifiers Guide.
Manufacturers of geosynthetic materials are encour-
aged to contact GFRs editors to confirm that their
submissions have been received and processed, or
to inform the magazines staff that submissions are
forthcoming.
The deadline is 15 September 2004. The Spec
Guide, GFRs annual volume of polymeric product
data and professional resource directory, will be
published in December and distributed to magazine
subscribers, at shows throughout the forthcoming
year, and through the IFAI Bookstore. (See inside
back cover.) Product data submission tables are
provided for geotextiles, geogrids, geomembranes,
rolled erosion control products, drainage products,
geocells and geosynthetic clay liners.
Contact The Editors, GFR Magazine, 1801
County Rd. B W., Roseville, MN 55113-4061; +1 651
225 6988, fax +1 651 225 6966, e-mail cskelsey@ifai.
com, Web site www.gfrmagazine.info.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Web site at www.geoquebec2004.org.
2729 October, IFAI Expo 2004, Pitts-
burgh. Organized by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International (IFAI), IFAI Expo is
North Americas largest annual specialty fabrics
industry exposition. The events mix of educa-
tional seminars, short courses, presentations
and exhibits reveal niche markets, trends and
designs in a number of fields: architecture,
engineering, agriculture, industrial and many
more. This years event includes an education
track to help impart more engineering knowl-
edge to architects.
For more information, contact IFAI Confer-
ence Management, 1801 County Rd. B W., Ros-
eville, MN 55113-4061; +1 651 222 2508, fax +1
651 631 9334, e-mail confmgmt@ifai.com, Web
site www.ifaiexpo.info.
34 November, 2004 Design-Build Expo,
Chicago. Without a doubt, design-build strategies are reshaping how engineers do business. The Design-
Build Expo brings architects, engineers and contractors together for sharing experience and concerns.
For more information, contact Patrick Wilson, Design-Build Institute of America, 1010 Massachusetts
Ave. N.W., Fl. 3, Washington, DC 20001-5402; +1 202 454 7535, fax +1 202 682 5877, e-mail dbia@dbia.
org, Web site www.eshow2000.com/dbia.
Giroud to deliver
2005 Terzaghi Lecture
By Lara Peggs
In March 2001, Dr. J.-P. Giroud was invited to give the 2005 Terzaghi Lecture organized every other year
by the Technical University of Vienna, Austria. It is an exceptional honor, as it is one of the most prestigious
lectures in the field of geotechnical engineering. Dr. Giroud will present the Terzaghi Lecture on the first
day of the Austrian Geotechnical Conference, which will take place in Vienna on 2122 February 2005.
The conference typically attracts 300400 participants from about 20 countries.
The title of the lecture will be Geosynthetic engineering: successes, failures and lessons learned. The
tentative synopsis is:
Karl Terzaghi at Mission Dam (now called Terzaghi Dam), and his first experience with a geosynthetic:
a failure and a success.
Failures and lessons learned. The selected examples will be of interest to a large audience, and will
show the degree of sophistication in geosynthetic engineering, such as: geomembrane cracking patterns,
and the triumph of rational analysis; the effect of differential settlement on geosynthetics and the concept
of co-energy, an original application of mechanics; influence of water on stability of geosynthetic systems,
Q & A: DABFET
Its one of the more peculiar professional acronyms
to follow an engineers name: DABFET. It stands
for Diplomate of the American Board of Forensic
Engineering and Technology. A good number of
chemical specialists and expert witnesses acquire
and maintain this credential, since projects often
involve a great mix of disparate materials: concrete,
steel, geosynthetics, polymer-modified soils, etc.
Certifications and degrees can be a difference
maker in a clients selection of an engineer, or a
regulators input on code requirements.
For more information, contact American College
of Forensic Examiners International, 2750 E. Sun-
shine, Springfield, MO 65804; +1 417 881 3818, fax
+1 417 881 4702, Web site www.acfei.com.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
and the defeat of common sense.
Successes and lessons learned. Tentative subjects include: some applications of geosynthetics in dams,
where the durability of geosynthetics may be better than the durability of traditional materials; geotextile
filters as a design success for geosynthetic engineering that could transfer technology toward geotechnical
engineering. This will end the lecture on a Terzaghian note.
Lara Peggs is the content manager for geosynthetica.net.
Are you qualified?
In February, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) raised the question of whether a bachelors
degree in civil engineering was enough, given the scope of infrastructure that civil engineers are responsible
for (e.g., urban transportation systems). Since then a number of field publications and society newsletters
have given space to the discussion.
Of course, it is unlikely that a 23- or 36- or 52-year-old engineer recently graduated from an under-
graduate program or having just qualified for recognition as a professional engineer would easily win a
job designing a subway system or remediating a brownfield. Years of dues (both financial and figurative)
must be paid before the major jobs may realistically be competed for.
Still, the question is a valid one.
Though we rarely see the sort of development that transforms entire societiesthe standard example
is the invention (and mass availability) of the televisionwe have reached a point of technological research
and development where a tremendous number of products, services and techniques are available. It is
said that our cars lose half their value the moment we drive them off the lot, but many of our computers
reach a near zero value within 18 months, especially when we need to upgrade our computers to accom-
modate increasingly vital design and management programs.
Its easy to see this conflict of choice in electronic technologies, and weve grown used to it. But this
conflict is played out in many other areas, including engineering. And this is where extended education
begins to play a much deeper role. Consider the myriad concerns of standard construction practices: tight
bid competition; rising raw material costs that in turn alter the as-built cost; labor, materials and insurance;
etc. (Insurance alone is worth deep consideration.) The rapid proliferation of choices threatens confidence
in any design.
Is research losing its value?
One of the real struggles presented by new technologies is that the faster they appear, the less likely
long-term studies will be taken up. Road construction is a segment especially vulnerable to this. A trans-
portation department might embark on a five- or seven-year study on the performance of various asphalt
mixes within that departments primary area of responsibility, but a few advances in mix and application
technologies in the studys first year or two could render the entire project moot. Globally, roadway studies
are being abandoned because new choices of asphalt mixes are available. This comes at the disadvantage
of what we might have learned from the performance of the old mixes, or about the other factors involved
in roadway performance: drainage control, reinforcement, frequency of maintenance.
Certainly, new technologies are being built upon previous advances, but were seeing change come at
an alarming ratealarming because it encourages complacency or outright resistance. That is, we become
too trusting of what is new, or we become too hesitant to investigate a newer option.
Education can provide a valuable buffer here. A deeper understanding of the primary design consid-
erations can deliver the proper perspective, an essential mix of questioning and analysis.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Polymers in the field
Polymeric construction products have advanced quickly in the last few decades, as have polymeric
materials in most fields. Composites, plastics, fabrics in engineering: The world is no longer just concrete,
wood and steel. We are more efficient and economical, but we certainly have not simplified things. True
enough, the incorporation of fibers (e.g., carbon) into materials means that even concrete, wood and steel
are different than they were a decade ago. Specialization is a must to gain real confidence in where our
projects are going.
For polymeric products, new uses of resin formulations and manufacturing advances are leading to
abrupt leaps in the mechanical performance values of materials. And though one strength test value may
out-muscle our instinct to fully consider other material choices, we must.
Education is an insurance policy. A deeper level of understanding of the forces acting upon our de-
signse.g., hydrostatic, seismic, creepis vital, as is the ability to understand how our select materials
respond.
Not every engineer needs a doctorate, but we must continue to gain knowledge, refine our practice,
and collect resources to assist us in selecting the right materials. And where we are not expert, we must
seek the proper project agents to verify our decisions.
Technology is a difficult thing to keep pace with, but having the right background or the correct people
on call goes a long way towards minimizing the confusion caused by progress.
Five for one
GFRs new online edition gives subscribers the print edition, unlimited access to the online archives, and
the ability to share the electronic-half of the subscription with four colleagues. This will help keep small
offices and company divisions up-to-date on the use of polymeric materials in contemporary design and
construction.
Visit www.gfrmagazine.info for subscription information.
Writers interested in submitting case studies, research or other articles for simultaneous print and elec-
tronic publication should contact The Editors, GFR Magazine, 1801 County Rd. B W., Roseville, MN 55113-
4061; +1 651 225 6988, fax +1 651 225 6966, e-mail gfr@ifai.com, Web site www.gfrmagazine.info.
D35 meets D18
ASTM Internationals Committee D35 on Geosynthetics held its mid-year meeting in June in Kansas City.
It was suggested that members of subcommittee D35.05 (geosynthetic erosion control) be contacted in
regards to related activities of Committee D18 on Soil and Rock. Specifically, the request was made in
regards to D18.25 (erosion and sediment control).
ASTM Internationals committees invite participation from the field. They use consensus to revise old
or write new standards. Committees with cross-over interests and memberships are encouraged to share
information and ideas, but it must be noted that in order to receive applicable committee ballot items, each
participant must apply for the right subcommittee memberships.
GFR readers are encouraged to look into ASTM committee memberships and opportunities.
For information regarding Committee D35 on Geosynthetics, contact Christi Sierk, staff manager, at
+1 610 832 9728, e-mail csierk@astm.org.
For information regarding Committee D18 on Soil and Rock, contact Bob Morgan, staff manager, at
+1 610 832 9732, e-mail bmorgan@astm.org.
Both committees may be reached by mail at ASTM International, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken,
PA 19428-2959. Visit ASTM and its individual committee Web sites online at www.astm.org.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Big Dig author Dan McNichol selected as guest lecturer
Organizers of Geo-Frontiers 2005 have chosen Dan McNichol as the events guest lecturer. The congress
takes place 2426 January at the Hilton Austin Convention Center Hotel in Austin, Texas. More than 550
technical paper abstracts have been submitted for potential presentations.
McNichol, author of the best-selling book, The Big Dig, is considered an expert on Bostons Central/
Artery Tunnel Project. In Washington, D.C., he received a White House appointment to serve the then
Secretary of Transportation, Andrew H. Card (who currently serves as President Bushs Chief of Staff).
McNichol will speak about his new book, The Roads that Built America: the Incredible Story of the U.S.
Interstate System.
Geo-Frontiers 2005 is being organized by the Geosynthetic Materials Association (GMA), a division
of the Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI); the Geo-Institute (G-I) of the American Society of
Civil Engineers (ASCE); and the Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI).
Technical papers presented during this broad-based congress, which combines Geosynthetics 2005TM,
the G-I Congress and GRI-18, will be presented in the following educational tracks:
Earthquake engineering and soil dynamics
Erosion control
Foundations
Geotechnical professional issues
Pavements
Site characterization
Slopes and retaining structures
Soil improvement and grouting
Waste containment and remediation
In addition to technical paper presentations, Geo-Frontiers 2005 will include hands-on workshops,
short courses, field demonstrations and tours, and an expansive exhibition floor featuring a full range of
products, technologies and services to support your designs.
For more information, contact IFAI Conference Management, 1801 County Rd. B W., Roseville, MN
55113-4061; +1 651 222 2508, fax +1 651 631 9334, e-mail confmgmt@ifai.com, Web site www.
gmanow.com or www.geofrontiers.org.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
The practice: ownership
By Jean E. Bierwirth, P.E.
Editors introduction: Many (if not most) engineers
give serious thought to establishing an independent
consulting practice. Work within this profession can
be considerably adversarial, usually demands long
hours, and ultimately encourages specialization, even
if it is not the sort of specialization one intended when
first entering the field. As such, working independently
becomes quite attractive, even if we are still working
long, often pressured hours. Engineers and doctors
have similar career arcs in this regard. (True, the simi-
larities end quickly. Imagine a doctor showing up to
work in a dusty pickup truck, or an engineer visiting a
landfill site in a Mercedes and a pair of loafers.)
Red Mesa Consulting has operated in Grand
Junction, Colo., since 1996. Its owner, Jean Bierwirth,
who last wrote for GFR in April 2003 (Surface impoundment rehabilitation), recently made the
decision to take her independent practice one step further, choosing to buy a facility rather than
continue to rent.
For readers considering establishing their own practice, or faced with a similar cost and com-
mitment decision, her story is one to learn fromespecially since she was able to use her firms
expertise to secure an advantageous locations approval.CK
To rent? or own?
I hate paying rent! My accountant can debate at length the tax advantages of leasing, but instinctively
it feels like flushing money down the toilet. So when financial circumstances allowed for real estate
investment, my firm started scouring the town for office buildings.
There were a wide variety of choices: pre-fab metal warehouses, high-rent brick and glass build-
ings, and old residential properties converted to office space. The conditions along with the prices
varied widely. And, inevitably, some sellers were more impressed with their property than seemed
appropriate. Unable to locate a suitable and affordable building, buying land and building our own
facility was explored. Options were discussed, but when it came down to it, trying to find a large
enough parcel with ample parking and negotiating our way through the permitting process proved
too time consuming and expensive. So back to existing structures and, finally, we found a 12,600
ft.2 facility with a generous fenced-in yard and parking area in lower downtown Grand Junction.
Further investigation revealed that the property was located in the Mesa County Economic En-
terprise Zone. This meant that a percentage of monies invested in new staff and equipment would
be reimbursed through tax credits, an unexpected bonus.
Our financing was provided in part by the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). Their re-
quirements included a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, which Red Mesa conducts routinely.
However, because of potential for conflict, we had to hire an outside firm to perform the assessment.
Low and behold, there are 11 leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs) listed in the regulatory
Red Mesas new building in downtown Grand
Junction, Colo.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
database for the area surrounding our building. Perhaps someone less familiar with environmental
assessments would have been concerned, but after reviewing the specific entries, estimating ground-
water flow direction, and speaking with the tank owners, we were able to show the lenders that the
LUSTs were of minimal concern. After all, this is a well-developed area of town and zoned industrial;
it would have been surprising not to find regulatory entries.
We closed on the property last June and moved in September after spending approximately
$120,000 on remodeling and bringing the building up to fire codes. Last fall, the voters of Grand
Junction approved a $75 million road project that includes a parkway south and east of our prop-
ertyfurther enhancing visibility and access. Not only did we pick an area of growth, but to sweeten
our pot, we have located a major corporation as a long-term tenant to offset some of the costs.
The purchase has given Red Mesa a new sense of independence and prosperity. This change
can be made by anyone looking to invest and build equity.
Here are some things that we took into consideration when purchasing our office building:
Location and zoning. That is, where are the areas of greatest growth and appreciation, and what
zoning offers the greatest flexibility. Always keep your eye on return on investment should you decide
to sell.
Tax breaks. Are there areas in your town that provide economic incentive to development or remod-
eling?
Establishing your own equity. Why would you pay someone elses mortgage if you dont have to?
Will you be able to rent portions to reduce overhead? Be warned; it often takes months to find ten-
ants, but under the right circumstances, you can offset the mortgage and reduce remodeling costs
by requiring that your new neighbor pay for tenant finish.
There are risks if real estate is not appreciating where you work, if the cost of unexpected repairs
is onerous, or if your income stream suddenly decreases, but the upside is the pride of ownership
and the feeling of building for the future.
Red Mesa Consulting Inc., www.redmesa.net, provides civil and environmental engineering ser-
vices to clients throughout the Southwest.
See Jean Bierwirths April 2003 Designers Forum article on a surface impoundment rebuild project
at www.gfrmagazine.info.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
By Robert M. Koerner, P.E.,
director of GSI
By way of the Geosynthetic Institutes (GSI) Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI), we have been writing
standards (which include test methods, guides and specifications) since 1986. From the very beginning
our concept was to provide starter-standards for ASTM International and, more recently, the International
Standards Organization (ISO). Whenever these groups formalize a standard on the same topic, we depre-
ciate ours so different procedures that could potentially cause confusion are not available. An accounting
of GSIs activities to date in this regard is noted in Table 1.
Once a need is expressed for a particular standard, we work within the GSI focus group that is most
involved in the potential standard. When a draft is ready and has general or majority agreement (not
necessarily a consensus), we send it out to the entire membership for their review and comment. Some-
times it goes back to the focus group, but generally it does not, and it is adopted with minor changes.
For example, the Hanging bag test for geotextile tubes and containers has just been adopted. It had its
beginning in December 2003 and took six months to finalize. Conversely, some standards never seem to
get finalized. In general, specifications are the most difficult, and guides are the quickest. Test methods
fall in between.
For the at-large field of geosynthetics, GRI specifications and guides are openly available on our Web
site. These are free for anyone to download, and the version on the Web site is always the most recent
modification. Also, test methods (along with the specifications and guides) are bound in a 250+ page
published book form. GSI charges $100 plus shipping and handling.
We plan to continue with this activity in the hope that it serves not only GSI members, but the entire
geosynthetics industry.
For more information, contact Geosynthetic Institute, 475 Kedron Ave., Folsom, PA 19033; +1 610 522
8440, fax +1 610 522 8441, e-mail mashley@dca.net, Web site www.geosynthetic-institute.org.
The role of GRI standards
Geosynthetic
category
GRI Standards Depreciated
to ASTM or ISO
Test methods Guides Specifications
Geotextiles 9 3 2 5
Geogrids 8 3 0 3
Geonets 1 0 0 1
Geomembranes 12 5 6 6
GCLs 2 0 0 2
Geocomposites 8 0 0 1
Multipurpose 8 2 0 4
Table 1. A breakdown of standards (test methods, guides and specifications) created by GRI since
1986. As other organizations create their own acceptable standards, GRI retires its standards.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
Part 1: roadway applications
During the summer of 1977, I visited the
Corps of Engineers Waterways Experi-
ment Station at Vicksburg to discuss
research that I was performing on the
use of geotextiles to improve the per-
formance of track support structures.
Both the heat and humidity of a Mis-
sissippi August day and the Corps in-
novative research on the use of what
would become geocells left a lasting
impression in my memory. Contained in
the largest Quonset hut that I had ever
seen was a roadway test section
used for full-scale tests of alterna-
tive rapid deployment military roads
for challenging weak subgrades.
The search for a modern alterna-
tive to the steel mats made famous
in both fronts during World War II
was in full stride. The specific topic
was focused on improving tactical
bridge approach roads across soft
ground (Webster 1977, 1979), but
the fundamental nature of the research was self-evident even then.
A young (we all were) Steve Webster had the luxury in this test site to create a variety of challenging
subgrades, construct a full-scale alternative military road, and then run cycles of actual military equipment
over the road. As a young academic, I was flush with the thought of what optional research use I could
find for an Army tank in North Carolina. Dove hunting took on a new meaning. The geocell test section I
watched under construction was formed of thousands of short corrugated plastic pipe sections standing
vertical on the native ground or a geotextile, see Photo 1. The pipe sections were mechanically attached
together and then filled with sand. Given only a thin sand surfacing to bury the plastic pipes, the perfor-
mance of the roadway under heavy traffic loading was amazing. The ability of the geocells to limit roadway
displacements far exceeded the simple separator geotextiles that I had been investigating.
In the years since that steamy day in Vicksburg, I have been disappointed with the near absence
of research papers on geocells in all of the geosynthetic national and international conferences. Even
Koerner allocates only a handfull of pages in his textbook to this most interesting geo topic (Koerner
1996). With applications of geocells now encompassing roadway reinforcement, erosion control, retaining
walls, and even emergency flood walls, a more applied review of geocells is overdue. This two-part series
Geocells: a 25-year perspective
Commercial geocell Flexural stiffness, EI (lb-in2)
GeoProducts 3 Smooth 65,255
Presto 3 Textured 23,976
Presto 4 Textured & Perforated 34,096
Table 1. Geocell flexibility.
By Gregory N. Richardson, Ph.D., P.E.
Photo 1. Corps of Engineers geocell test section, Vicksburg, 1977.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
will focus on the basic theory behind
geocell performance and its role in the
initial application to roadways over poor
subgrades. Part Two of this series will
extend the application of geocells to
erosion control and retaining walls. In
all applications, an attempt is made to
clearly identify the important physical
properties of both the geocell manu-
factured component and the granular
material used to fill the cells.
Todays geocell product
While Webster explored a wide range
of potential geocell mats, todays com-
mercial products are almost exclusively
formed of 50-mil thick high-density poly-
ethylene (HDPE) strips factory welded to form panels having a honeycomb structure. The panels are
shipped collapsed but are quickly expanded and staked in place (Photo 2). The individual cells of the
geocell panels are then filled with gravel or sand. The use of cohesive fills is physically impractical due to
the inability to compact such soils in the small cells and lack of physical benefits for such soils. The indi-
vidual cells have a height to diameter ratio in roadway applications of approximately one.
The HDPE geocells are available with the plastic sheets smooth or textured and with or without per-
forations. The role of these options is discussed in the technical discussions in this series. Additionally,
a geotextile separator is typically placed beneath the geocell honeycomb on clayey subgrade to prevent
pumping of subgrade fines into the geocell granular fill.
The role of confinement for granular subgrades
Websters early research showed that
the geocells provided an effective con-
finement of their contents when the
height of the cell was equal to or greater
than the diameter of the cell. This con-
finement may be thought of as similar to
that provided by the bag in conventional
sandbags. As load is applied to the con-
fined granular material, its expansion
perpendicular to the load is limited by
the tensile strength of the bag. This cre-
ates a confining stress that increases
the strength of the granular fill. This
effect is shown in Figure 1 using the
Mohrs circle model (Hausemann 1976)
that most civil engineers are familiar
with. Here the stress
r
is the lateral
Photo 2. Todays geocell mats expand to form honeycombs.
Figure 1. Composite Mohr envelope; reinforced earth.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
stress taken by the reinforcement. This reduces the horizontal stress in the granular fill and produces
the apparent cohesion. The lateral confinement of the geocell produces pseudo-cohesion strength in the
granular fill that is critical to its performance. The amount of pseudo-cohesion developed is influenced by
the stiffness of the geocell walls and the ability of the geocell to contain the granular fill. This pseudo-cohe-
sion model has been successfully applied to all forms of soil reinforcement.
The role of the pseudo-cohesion in roadway applications can be clearly demonstrated using conven-
tional bearing capacity analysis. The bearing capacity, Q
ult'
, of a soil having both cohesive and frictional
strength subjected to a uniform circular loading (e.g., tire load) is given as follows:
Where c is the cohesion of the soil, is the unit weight of the soil, R is the radius of the load, and N
c
and
N
are bearing capacity factors that are a function of the frictional strength of the subgrade. The first half
of the equation represents the bearing capacity due to cohesion; the second half represents the bearing
capacity due to the frictional strength of the subgrade.
The apparent cohesion from one commercial brand of geocells formed of 50 mil polyethylene is re-
ported to be 3,000 psf (Presto 2003). Assuming conservative physical properties for the granular fill of =
100 psf and a friction angle of 30, the bearing capacity for these 50 mil HDPE walled geocells subjected
to a vehicle tire load would be approximately
This simple example shows that
commercial geocells would provide a
300-fold increase in the bearing capac-
ity as compared to the layer of sand.
This assumes that the thickness of the
reinforced granular layer is greater than
the radius of the applied wheel load.
Lacking a rigorous method for evalu-
ation of the bearing capacity of a specific
geocell and granular fill, the pseudo-co-
hesion must be based on laboratory
testing. A design engineer must have
a feel for the relative impact of geocell
properties on actual performance.
Geocell rigidity for weak clay
subgrade (CBR<2)
An alternative approach to quantifying
the role of the geocell system in increas-
ing the bearing capacity of roadways
over weak clays is to account for the
ability of the slab like stiffness of the
Figure 2. Comparison of reinforced and unreinforced tests
with 300 mm of gravel base.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
honeycomb structure of the geocell to
spread out concentrated wheel loads.
An excellent laboratory study that quali-
tatively examined this mechanism was
performed by Richard Bathurst and
Peter Jarrett at the Royal Military Col-
lege of Canada in the 1980s (Bathurst
1981). Figure 2 shows the deformation
of the center of a various geocell/gravel
systems constructed over one meter
of compressible peat. The Presto Ge-
oWeb in Figure 2 is similar to that
shown in Photo 2. The geocellular sys-
tem in Figure 2 is actually more of a
flexible honeycomb system formed from
strips of geogrid joined with steel rod
bodkin connections. Laboratory data
shows that the geocell formed of the welded HDPE strips had significantly less deformation that the geocell
formed of geogrids or the unreinforced gravel. This study qualitatively shows that the stiffness of the plastic
honeycomb system is very important but does not provide guidance on quantifying this role.
The role of the stiffness of the plastic honeycomb system should be remembered when selecting geocell
mats. Many of the available commercial geocell mats have a significant percentage of the side walls of the
cells removed by perforation of the strips. These perforations greatly reduce the stiffness of the honeycomb
structure. To illustrate this increased flexibility, beams of the flat as-shipped geocells were subjected to
a central point load. Table 1 shows the resulting decrease in the flexural stiffness of the geocell beams.
For roadway applications, I see no advantage in using perforated or textured geocells, since the flexibility
of the honeycomb is highly compromised. The drainage offered by the perforations is simply not needed
in roadway applications.
An interesting analytical approach to bearing capacity based on cell rigidity estimates the amount of
vertical stress that is transferred to the honeycomb cell structure. The load transferred to the cell structure
is assumed to transfer laterally such that it does not influence the local bearing capacity. This approach
requires testing such as performed by Barthurst and Jarrett to confirm sufficient rigidity in the cell struc-
ture to actually support the loading being transferred to it. The vertical stress at the top and bottom of an
individual cell can be estimated for uniformly loaded line and circular loads centered over a single geocell
using the following equations (Presto 2003):
Line load
Circular load
Figure 3. Variables for the calculation of vertical stress in subgrade.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
The variables used in these equa-
tions are shown on Figure 4. The line
load would be appropriate for tank/dozer
tracks, while the circular load is good for
rubber tires. Note also that these elastic
equations do not account for the pres-
ence of the geocell honeycomb and are
therefore quite approximate.
Having calculated the vertical
stresses,
z
, acting on a geocell, the
horizontal stresses,
h
, are simply taken
as
z
times the active earth pressure
coefficient, K
a
. The active earth pres-
sure coefficient is related to the internal
friction angle, ,of the granular fill as
follows:

Figure 4 shows the assumed stress
conditions acting on the single cell
being evaluated. The average horizon-
tal stress acting on the inside of the cell,
havg
is assumed to be simply the aver-
age of the top and bottom horizontal
stresses.
The load in the geocell being trans-
ferred to the geocell honeycomb sys-
tem, F
transfer
, is simply the one half the
average horizontal stress times the interior surface area of a cell times the tangent of the interface friction,
, between the granular fill and the interior walls of the geocell. This can be expressed as follows:
Note that the 12 factor conservatively accounts for the nonlinear distribution of the vertical stress with
depth. This force is assumed to be transferred laterally by the geocell honeycomb and is subtracted from
the vertical stress previously calculated at the base of the geocell, (sz)base, as follows:
The allowable stress on the geotextile underlying the geocell is assumed to equal 2.8 times the co-
hesive strength, c, of the subgrade. This is based on early recommendations by the U.S. Forest Service
(Steward 1977) for geotextile stabilized haul roads designed for high traffic counts and light rutting. If the
corrected vertical stress acting on the geotextile, (
z
)corrected, is greater than 2.8c, then the thickness of
the granular cover over the geogrid must be increased and the evaluation repeated.
Figure 4. Assumed stress conditions acting on a single cell.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
The force being transferred to the geocell system is dependent on the interface friction of the granular
fill to the HDPE walls of the geocell. This is commonly referenced in terms of the ratio, r, of the interface
friction angle to the internal friction angle of the granular fill. Typical published values for this interface fric-
tion ratio are compared in Table 2 to those obtained specifically for this article. The performance of the
geocells formed of textured HDPE sheet and those having perforations are essentially identical for most
granular materials. Ironically, the perforations were introduced to allow drainage of geocell mats used on
slopes for erosion control and not to improve bearing capacity applications. For typical bearing capacity
applications, the perforations are not required for drainage and detrimentally impact the stiffness of the
geocell. This will be discussed later.
As an example calculation, lets look at the problem shown on Figure 5. The vertical stress on the top
of the geocell can be calculated as

In a similar manner, the vertical stress on the bottom of the geocell is calculated to be 16.7 psi. The
average horizontal stress acting on the geocell,
havg
, is then calculated to be 9.7 psi. The total shear force
transferred to the geocell, F
transfer
, is equal to
The resulting vertical stress acting on the subgrade, (sz)corrected, is then calculated to be
1 + (4.6/4)
2
Granular Material Geocell Wall Published* r = d/f Measured** r = d/f
Coarse Sand/Gravel Smooth 0.71 0.71
Textured 0.88 0.83
Smooth-Perforated - 0.85
Textured -Perforated 0.90 0.89
#40 Silica Sand Smooth 0.78 0.68
Textured 0.90 0.87
Smooth-Perforated - 0.87
Textured -Perforated 0.90 0.93
Crushed Stone Smooth 0.72
Textured 0.72
Smooth-Perforated -
Textured -Perforated 0.83
* = Hausemann 1976. ** = Steward 1977.
Table 2. Peak interface friction angle ratio, r.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Given the allowable contact stress
of 2.8 x 2.1 psi = 5.9 psi, the geocell
design meets bearing capacity require-
ments.
Note that this design method is ap-
proximate and assumes that the struc-
ture of the geocell honeycomb is ad-
equate to transfer the load laterally.
Obviously this may not be true if the
thickness of the plastic forming the cells
is significantly reduced, if the welds
holding the cells together are inade-
quate, or if the modulus of the plastic is
significantly reduced. Since no calcula-
tions are performed for this honeycomb
stiffness, the designer must cautiously
accept manufacturers recommenda-
tions. For bearing capacity applications,
I would recommend avoiding geocells
formed with perforations or texturing.
Geocell specifications
Personally, I find evaluating specifications for commercial geocell products more difficult than reviewing
the design concepts. Fortunately, all the commercial geocell products that the author reviewed are under
license to the Army Corps of Engineers and shared many fundamental properties. Based on the design
concepts previously reviewed, it is apparent that a geocell system for roadway applications must provide
the following:
A system stiffness that ensures applied loads are distributed laterally by the honeycomb structure
Adequate frictional bond to the enclosed granular fill to ensure that either confinement or load transfer
occurs
Sufficient robustness that the HDPE used to form the geocell will survive both installation and service
As with all commercial products, the designer should understand the applicability of each specifica-
tion requirement to the function being required of the product. The following discussion relates only to the
roadway application of geocells.
System stiffness requirements
The work by Bathurst and Jarrett showed that geocells of the proper size and formed of welded smooth
50 mil thick HDPE sheet could provide adequate stiffness to distribute applied loads laterally. The geocells
formed of geogrids did not perform as well. Four factors can have significant influence on the stiffness
of the geocell honeycomb: weld strength, height-to-diameter ratio of the individual cells, panel thickness,
and perforations to the sheet. Weld strength requirements for geocells are based on Corps of Engineers
research (U.S. Army Corps) as summarized on Table 3. All commercial geocell products reviewed ap-
peared to use and meet these requirements.
For roadway applications, the depth-to-diameter ratio of the individual cell should be approximately
one. Commercial geocells are available in depths of 75 mm (3 in.), 100 mm (4 in.), 150 mm (6 in.), and 200
Figure 5. Peak interface friction angle ration, r.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
m (8 in.) with nominal areas of 289 cm
2
(44.8 in.
2
), 460 mm
2
(71.3 in.
2
) and 1.2 m
2
(187 in.
2
). The depth-
to-diameter ratio criteria would suggest that cost effective reinforcement would be obtained with 150 mm
high cells having a nominal area of 289 cm
2
(H/D = 0.80) or 200 mm high cells having a nominal area of
460 mm
2
(H/D = 0.82).
The thickness of the HDPE forming the geocells is nominally 50 3 mil. A factor that I have not seen
addressed by direct research is the impact of texturing on this thickness. Typically we think of texturing
as roughness added to the surface of a geomembrane so that the nominal thickness actually increases.
However, the texturing in geocells is embossed into the sheet and results in a significant percentage of the
sheet having a nominal thickness of only 31 mils by my measurement. Bending tests presented in Table 3
indicated that the embossed texturing significantly reduces the stiffness of the geocell honeycomb.
Perforations are made in the strips forming geocells to allow lateral drainage when the system is in-
stalled on a slope or to improve the interface friction between the HDPE and granular fill. For roadway
applications, lateral drainage is typically not a concern. Since excessive perforations could significantly
reduce the stiffness of the geocell system (recall the poor performance of the geogrid formed geocells in
the tests by Bathurst and Jarrett), the perforations should be only enough to improve the interface friction
and not so many as to reduce the rigidity of the honeycomb system.
Frictional bond
Table 3 shows that the interface friction ratio (interface friction/internal friction angle of fill) between the
geocell wall and the granular fill ranges from 0.71 for smooth to 0.9 for textured/perforated HDPE geocells.
With the exception of crushed stone fill, the combination of texturing and perforations does not have merit.
For smooth sheet, a minimal number of perforations dramatically increases the interface friction ratio. The
number of perforations however must be limited to retain the strength of the geocell side wall.
Strenth Property Geocell Depth Seam Peel Strength
Short-term Seam Strength 75 mm (3 in)
100 mm (4in)
150 mm (6in)
200 mm (8in)
1,060 N (240 lbf)
1,420 N (320 lbf)
2,130 N (480 lbf)
2,840 N (640 lbf)
Long-term Seam Strength 'Seam Hang Strength": a 100 mm welded joint must support a load of 72.5
kg (160 lbs) for 30 days minimum or a load of 72.5 kg (160 lbs) for 7 days
minimum undergoing a temperature change from 23 C (74.5 F) ro 54 C
(130 F) on 1 hour cycles.
Table 3. Minimum geocell seam strength requirements.
Material Property Test Method Geogrid GRI-GM13
Minimum Polymer Density ASTM D1505 0.940 g/cm
3
0.940 g/cm
3
Minimum Carbon Black Content ASTM D 1603 1.5% 2.0-3.0%
Environmental Stress Crack Resistance ASTM D 1693 4,000 hr 200 hr
Table 4. Survivability physical properties of HDPE Geocells.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Survivability
The key physical properties of the HDPE specified for commercial geocells are shown on Table 4 with
similar properties for HDPE liner material. Note that the geocell HDPE has greater stress crack resistance,
which is needed since stone may be compacted direct on the HDPE in the geocell. Also, the liner HDPE
has greater UV protection since it maybe exposed for extended periods of time in some applications. Con-
versely, the geocell HDPE is typically exposed to UV for only a short period of time during construction.
Summary
Geocells provide the most dramatic geo improvement in bearing capacity possible. For either sandy or
weak clay subgrade, the performance is outstanding. Some 6.4 million ft.
2
(595,000 m
2
) of geocells were
used in the first Desert Storm to ensure mobility of the U.S. Army. Fortunately, they work as well in peace-
time. This article has focused on the use of geocells in unpaved haul roads. Design procedures have also
been developed by the Corps of Engineers to incorporate geocell systems in paved roadways. In such
applications, the geocell honeycomb structure leads to a significant increase in the structural number, SN,
of that layer. The readers are directed to the web sites of the manufacturers for guidelines on installation
of geocells in roadway applications.
Rob Swan of SGI Testing Services performed the interface friction and bending tests of geocell products
for the new data presented in this article. His ability to work out of the box is greatly appreciated.
Part Two of this series will examine the use of geocell systems in erosion control applications and in
the construction of retaining walls. These out-of-the-box applications of geocells are now a principal use
of these systems.
References
Bathurst, R.J. and Jarrett, P.M. 1981. Large-scale model tests of geocomposite mattresses over peat
subgrades. Transportation Research Record 1188. Transportation Research Board, Washington,
D.C.
Hausemann, M.R. 1976. Strength of Reinforced Soil. Proceedings of 8th Australian Road Research
Conference, vol.8.
Koerner, R.M. 1996. Designing with Geosynthetics. Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, N.J.
Presto Products Co. 2003. The Geoweb. Load Support System Technical Overview. Presto Products
Company, Appleton, Wis.
Steward, J.E., Williamson, R. and Mohney, J. 1977. Guidelines for use of Fabrics in Construction and
Maintenance of Low-Volume Roads. USDA Forest Service, Portland, Ore.
US Army Corps of Engineers. Tech Report GL-86-19.
Webster, S.L. and Watkins, J.E. 1977. Investigation of Construction Techniques for Tactical Bridge Ap
proach Roads Across Soft Ground, Report S-77-1. Soils and Pavements Laboratory, U.S. Army Wa
terways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Webster, S.L. 1979. Investigation of Construction Concepts Across Soft Ground, Report S-79-20. Geo
technical Laboratory, U.S. Army Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Greg Richardson is president of G.N. Richardson & Associates, Raleigh, N.C.; www.gnra.com.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
The design of landfill liner systems authorized under New
York States solid waste management regulations, 6 NYCRR
Part 360 (Part 360), has evolved systematically over time
as design engineers have sought improved liner system
performance and optimized disposal capacity. Actual liner
performance data from previous design improvements is
growing and substantiating the merit of these subtle varia-
tions above and beyond the minimum prescribed regulatory
liner system requirements. The design of the Section IV, Cell
1 and 2 expansion of the Broome County, N.Y. landfill is a
prime example of this ongoing design evolution. The design
was a first in Upstate New York for both its liner cross-section
and the approach to documenting its performance.
Liner design evolution
The standard liner cross-section required by the Part 360
regulations, including a pore pressure relief system (PPRS)
and frost protection (a necessity in central New York State if
waste cannot cover the liner system before winter sets in), is
generically depicted in Figure 1a. This section utilizes only
two geosynthetic components: a geomembrane in both the
primary and secondary composite liner systems. The total
thickness of the standard prescribed liner system is 9.5 ft.
(290 cm) with the underlying pore pressure relief and frost
protection layers placed above the liner system.
With design engineers seeking means to optimize land-
fill capacity and construction efficiency, this section quickly
evolved into the typical section shown in Figure 1b. This
section utilizes a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) for the upper 6
in. (150 mm) of low permeability soil in the primary composite
liner system, a drainage composite (DC) for 12 in. (300 mm) of drainage material in the secondary leach-
ate collection and removal system (SLCRS), and a similar drainage composite for the drainage material
in the pore pressure relief system. This section reduces the liner section by 2.5 ft. (750 mm), resulting in
increased airspace, which equals increased revenue for the project owner and decreased construction
timean important consideration in central New York where it can snow from October to May. Since the
12 in. (300-mm) structural fill layer required by the regulations has no specific permeability requirements
in the regulations, designers typically specify a relatively high permeability material for this layer to supple-
ment the flow capacity of the SLCRS. This section evolved based on the proven performance of properly
A case history of the Broome County Landfills pioneering expansion
The evolution of a better landfill liner system
Photo 1. The Broome County landfill has been
a seminal project in New York State's evolving
understanding of liner systems.
Photo 2. Installation of the secondary
geomemrane (foreground) and drainage
material (background).
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
designed GCLs and drainage composites used in specific components of landfill liners.
For the Broome County Landfill Expansion project, the owner, engineer and regulatory agency worked
closely together to conceive, permit and construct the next evolution of landfill liner sections. As shown in
Figure 1c, this section eliminated the 12 in. (300 mm) of structural fill, eliminated 6 in. (150 mm) of mate-
rial in the primary drainage layer, and added 12 in. (300 mm) of waste tire derived aggregate on the top
of the section to meet both hydraulic flow capacity and frost protection requirements. This section further
Figure 1. Evolution of a lining system.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
reduces overall thickness by 2.5 ft. (750 mm), adds
more airspace, and streamlines construction. The
county was very interested in streamlining con-
struction, since the project required the excava-
tion of over 900,000 yd.3 (700,000 m3) of material
prior to beginning construction of the liner system.
More importantly in the eyes of the design engi-
neer, it eliminated the need to place soil material
in the middle of the liner system, except for piping
trenches and bedding material required for acces-
sibility. After installation of the lower two feet of low
permeability material, the liner section is comprised
solely of geosynthetics until the 18-in. (450-mm)
primary drainage layer.
This evolution in the liner section was proposed
based on several premises.
Reduced need for structural fill layer. The primary
purpose of the structural fill layer in the standard
section was to provide a foundation for compaction
of the low permeability soil above. Once the low
permeability soil was replaced by a GCL, there was
less need for the structural fill component, except
to provide additional flow capacity for the SLCRS
and as a physical separation between the primary
and secondary liner systems.
Performance of typical liner section. The double
composite liner sections currently in service at
landfills throughout New York State are performing well, with the mean SLCRS flow rate below 8 gallons
per acre per day (gpad) [80 liters per hectare per day (lphd)] and rates as low as 0.6 gpad (6 lphd). It was
anticipated that by limiting the liner components that could contribute water to SLCRS, the Broome County
design will demonstrate even better performance as we move toward the theoretical deminimus goal of 1
gpad based only on vapor transmission through the geomembrane.
Rapid attainment of primary liner leakage rate (ALR) data. During design of the expansion, time was
of the essence, as the current capacity was being consumed. By eliminating the soil components in the
middle of the liner section, the true performance of the primary liner system should be determined more
quickly. Further, if the primary liner performance data did not meet the regulatory limit of 20 gpad (200
lphd), there would be no debate as to whether it was due to construction waterthe initial reasoning
that engineers typically use when they dont want to admit that everything may not have gone perfectly
during construction.
Occurrence of liner defects. Literature shows that a vast majority (97%) of the defects identified in geo-
membranes occur during construction of the landfill. The majority (73%) of those construction related
defects are caused by placing of the soil drainage layer above the geomembrane. Literature summarizing
the findings of electrical leak location surveys indicates that landfill liner construction will typically result
in as many as 69 liner defects per acre. It was assumed that by properly designing the liner system and
eliminating the need for heavy construction equipment during installation of the middle soil portion of the
liner section, a significant percentage of those defects could be eliminated.
Figure 2. A point of interest: The few defects found in the
liner seemed to have been clustered.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Performance of waste tire derived aggregate. There is a
growing body of literature that documents the effective per-
formance of waste tire derived aggregate both as a drainage
material and as an insulating layer. New York States solid
waste management regulations allow for substitution of
waste tire derived aggregate in a landfills primary leachate
collection and removal system, contingent upon the proper
engineering design and specification of tire derived aggregate
equivalent design applications. The merits of such designs
have demonstrated that tire derived aggregate applications:
- Meet and exceed the minimum regulatory required hy-
draulic permeability needs of the landfills primary leachate
collection and removal system
- Provide 78 times the thermal protection as a conven-
tional soil aggregate, greatly improving upon the frost pro-
tectiveness of the primary leachate collection and removal
system
- Provide enhanced armoring protection and visual iden-
tification properties of the upper layer of the landfills primary
leachate collection and removal layer
- Help minimize transportation related impacts and costs,
since waste tire derived aggregate is much lighter then con-
ventional soil aggregate
These equivalent design proposals are consistent with
New York States recently enacted Waste Tire Management
and Recycling Act of 2003. This legislation was enacted to
help ensure the proper management of waste tires in New
York State. The use of waste tire derived aggregate in landfill
leachate collection and removal systems is considered an
environmentally acceptable beneficial use as a civil engi-
neering application and is not considered disposal under the
provisions of the act.
However, that could be another case history, as this article focuses on the liner system prior to placing
the tire shreds.
Design and construction challenges
Even though the engineer could cite literature for performance data and make logical extrapolations in
support of the proposed liner section, the regulatory agency expressed concerns with three primary issues
related to eliminating the structural fill layer that could not be entirely alleviated with equations and logic:
Double damage. By eliminating the structural fill layer, the potential to compromise both composite lin-
ers with one error during construction or operation of the cell increased. Factors that were considered in
approving the proposed liner section included:
- The fact that the section included a PPRS allowed another layer of monitoring that could be imple-
mented in the event that both liner systems may have been damaged
- The fact that the low permeability of the in situ glacial till will also help minimize potential impacts to
Photo 3. Cover material was applied ahead of
heavy equipment, thus minimizing the potential
for damage caused by equipment on the geo-
synthetics.
Photo 4. Eletrical leak location measures
pinpointed the first defect: a single piece of
gravel. The flag used to mark the spot did not
penetrate the GCL.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
the environment
- The fact that the landfills containment system could also become an intra gradient design, if
necessary
- Emphasis was placed on initial operation of the cell, and the existing landfill operations could be used
to better segregate suitable waste material for use in the initial lift of waste in the new cell
Maintaining intimate contact. Without any soil components in the middle of the liner system, the potential
for wrinkles increases. The exceptional performance of the composite liner systems identified earlier is
predicated on intimate contact between the geomembrane and the underlying low permeability soil barrier
(or equivalent) component. This contact minimizes the potential for leachate that breaches the geomem-
brane to spread laterally to find a preferential flow path through the soil barrier. A wrinkle in a lower layer
may also increase the potential for and/or magnitude of wrinkles in subsequent components. Intermedi-
ate soil layers provide a nominal normal stress (weight) that both anchors the geosynthetics in place and
insulates them from temperature changes. The creation of wrinkles is exacerbated during the day when
the sun is out and when wide daily temperature swings occur. The fact that its rarely sunny for extended
periods in central New York was not a sufficient argument for regulatory team players. Ultimately, while
this issue was not solved during design, it was a focus during construction, and the general contractor
implemented means and methods during construction that greatly minimized wrinkles.
Figure 3. Secondary LCRS flow data.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
SLCRS flow capacity. Even though the required flow capacity in the SLCRS can be evaluated and veri-
fied via material testing, the need for additional flow capacity at critical locations (low points) remained
a concern. The grading of the base of the 12 acre (4.85 ha) cell was partially controlled by bedrock and
directed all flow to an outer corner of the cell. Over the lowest acre of the base of the cell, an additional
layer of drainage composite was added to help address this regulatory concern.
The final step in gaining approval of the proposed liner section was to evaluate the integrity of the
primary liner system as a part of construction by specifying electrical leak location testing of the primary
geomembrane as part of the construction quality assurance (CQA) process. As one of the co-authors of
this paper has expressed in his regulatory presentations: You will probably need to perform a leak location
test on your liner installation sooner or later, so we elected to do it sooner. This was the first application
of electrical leak location testing as part of the upfront standard CQA process in New York State, and an
approach that would allow the team to rapidly identify potential problems and quickly address them. Be-
cause the technology was relatively new at the time, the electrical leak location testing was kept part of the
engineers contract, and proposals were sought from qualified, recognized providers of the technology. A
corresponding request to increase the spacing (reduce the frequency) of destructive sampling to greater
than 500 ft. (150 m) was not accepted. However, if the CQA data demonstrated acceptable performance,
a variance to the destructive testing criteria would be considered for construction of future cells.
Team approach
In order to achieve the results that we anticipated on this project, everyone on the team needed to under-
stand the overall goals of the project, the pros and cons of the design, and those aspects that were critical
to construction, such as wrinkle management. This would involve the owner, regulatory agency, engineer,
general contractor, geosynthetic installer and CQA subconsultant.
The entire team accepted the challenge and was willing to demonstrate the quality that each member,
individually, knew they were capable of. The teamwork process began during the pre-bid meeting where
potential bidders were informed of the electrical leak location testing criteria. During the pre-construction
conference, various factors affecting performance of the system were discussed, including CQA/CQC
(construction quality control), wrinkle management, and the benefits of having the electrical leak location
survey. Because there was a large volume of soil that required excavation prior to beginning construction
of the liner system, a separate geomembrane pre-installation conference was held later to review our goals
and the components of the electrical leak location testing system that needed to be installed during con-
struction. To their credit, rather than viewing the electrical leak location survey as questioning their ability,
the geosynthetic installer [certified by International Association of Geosynthetic Installers (IAGI)] took the
addition of an electrical leak location survey as an opportunity to prove their skills and support their belief
that fewer destructive tests should be required for qualified contractors.
Construction
After a few months of soil excavation, installation of the PPRS and 24 in. (600 mm) of low permeability
soil barrier layer, construction of the critical middle geosynthetic portion of the liner system began. One
of the most obvious aspects of the construction sequencing was that as soon as a portion of the cell was
determined acceptable via the required CQA testing, the general contractor and geosynthetics installer
immediately began installing the next component of the liner system. This is shown in an aerial photograph
of the site (Photo 1), where:
Compaction of the low permeability soil in being completed (lower right portion of the photo)
Installation of the secondary HDPE geomembrane is seen (upper right)
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Drainage composite is being placed (lower left)
GCL is being placed (central left)
Primary geomembrane, cushion geotextile and primary
drainage stone are being placed (upper left)
This approach limited the amount of time any single
component of the liner system was exposed to the elements,
reducing the potential for development of wrinkles, and ex-
pedited the installation of the soil drainage material (a con-
fining normal stress). Photo 2, taken about the same time,
reiterates this point and shows installation of the secondary
geomembrane in the foreground and drainage material in the
background.
The general contractor also focused drainage material
installation activities during the morning hours before the
occasional glimpse of the sun had an opportunity to create
wrinkles. Finally this experienced general contractor em-
ployed construction means and methods that are somewhat
unusual. Trucks hauling drainage material were confined to
relatively small access roads with a sufficient thickness of
drainage material to protect the underlying geomembrane.
This kept the truck drivers who were relatively inexperienced
with landfill construction away from troublestandard practice
in good construction. A low ground pressure (LGP) bulldozer
(in the hands of an operator experienced in landfill construc-
tion) was then used to push the material to an excavator that
sat on thick area of drainage material. Rather than using the
bulldozer to push drainage material (which can encourage
and propagate wrinkles), the excavator was used to care-
fully place material ahead of itself (Photo 3). Once a given
area of geotextile was covered and anchored in place, the
LGP bulldozer was used to final grade the drainage material.
The writers believe that this approach helped minimize the
development of wrinkles in the geosynthetics components in
the middle of the liner section.
Another critical consideration is installation of the electrical leak location testing system components
during the construction process and providing the proper perimeter conditions (electrical isolation) to
improve the quality of the electrical leak location results. While this step was met with the typical general
contractor grumbling, the benefits were explained, and the contractor provided an excellent set up.
Results
One of the goals identified previously was to rapidly establish the primary liner systems performance and
identify potential problems. During the design process this was envisioned as completing the electrical
leak location survey as soon as construction of the liner system was completed. In keeping with the move
ahead as soon as its ready approach, the general contractor requested that the survey begin immedi-
ately after the drainage material was installed in the base of the cell, while material was still being placed
Photo 5. A few tine holes excaped vacuum box
testing but were found through visual checks.
Photo 6. A small scratch, potentially the result
of construction equipment contact, was found
through visual examination of the site after
being missed by vacuum box testing.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
on the side slopes. Of the 12 acre (4.85
ha) landfill footprint, approximately 10 ac.
(4 ha) comprising the landfill base were
tested. A total of 8 defects were identified
and located using electrical leak location
testing. This provided an average defect
rate of less than 1 defect per acre (2 de-
fects/ha), that compares very favorably
to the typical reported values for liner
installations of 69 defects/acre (1522
defects/ha) detected using electrical leak
location testing.
Photo 4 depicts the first defect found
(the small orange flag is gently placed in
the defectit does not penetrate the GCL!). Upon opening the cushion geotextile, a single piece of gravel
was found, probably dropped from a workers boot during installation of the cushion geotextile. Photo
5 shows the decreasing size of the defects found (in the white circle near the bottom of the photo). It is
surmised that a needle in the underlying GCL caused this defect, despite normal manufacturer and field
scans for needles. Note that vacuum box testing of this area did not identify the defect. A visual inspection
was used to locate the defect. No needle was found in the cushion geotextile. Defect 7 was at first thought
to be located in a seam; however, vacuum box testing did not reveal a defect. Upon further examina-
tion, a small scratch, most likely caused by installation equipment, was observed (Photo 6 between the
finger and the white line). Table 1 summarizes the defects found during testing and how they were cre-
ated. Defect 4 correctly identifies a rock as the culprit. Although all the drainage stone was screened, the
general contractor monitored for oversized material, and the field representative monitored for oversized
material, an 8 x 12 in. (200 x 300 mm) cobble managed to find its way onto the site. Although this stone
was not in direct contact with the liner system, its position must have transferred enough stress from the
construction equipment to the stone and liner below to cause a small penetration. Finally, the cause of
Defect 8 is unknown. The leak location survey initially identified a signal in this area. After cleaning and
vacuum box testing the area, nothing was found. The area was resurveyed, the signal reappeared, and
another investigation ensued. Again, nothing was found, and a large patch was placed over the entire area
in question.
Assuming the three equipment damage defects are attributed to installation damage, approximately
30% of the defects occurred during installation. This is comparable to the 24% value reported in the litera-
ture. The literature also reports that approximately 60% of the installation defects are found in extrusion
welded joints and pipe penetrations. One interesting result of the electrical leak location survey was that
none of the defects identified were located in seams. This dramatically contrasts with the reported data
(and greatly supports the geosynthetic installers position that fewer destructive tests could be taken). At
the same time, the results of the survey make intuitive sense. If the geomembrane CQA process is imple-
mented correctly, defects in the seams should be identified and repaired during geomembrane installation.
The only defects the electrical leak location survey finds should be located in those areas that werent
specifically tested previously.
It is also interesting to note that when plotted, a majority of the defects are located either in a relatively
small cluster in the southern portion of the cell or along the high ridge in the cell, which runs diagonally
across the base (Figure 2). Therefore, these defects would not likely have been detected via the primary
Number / Cause
1; Stone below cushion geotextile
2: Stone below cushion geotextile
3: Equipment scratchespossible staples at end of roll
4: Rock in middle of drainage material
5: Pinhole, probably needle from below
6:Equipment damage possible dropped pliers or simular
7: equipment scratch, unknown cause
8: May be part5ial penetration of needle from below
Table 1. Number of defects discovered and possible causes.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
liner performance monitoring portion of the construction certification process.
A plot of the SCLRS flow (primary liner performance data) data is presented in Figure 3. Primary liner
performance data is presented in the bottom plot, with daily precipitation shown in the middle plot and a
summary of pertinent construction activities in the upper plot. As can be seen in the figure, the liner perfor-
mance data prior to the electrical leak location survey was slightly less than 1 gpad (10 lphd). Even though
the cell had eight defects, all were small, and a majority of the defects were located near the ridge in the
cell. Both points will tend to reduce the amount of water available to flow through a defect. The primary
liner performance data continues to decrease as the geomembrane repairs were made. The installation
contractor provided a special tape that was placed over the penetrating defects upon location over the
weekend prior to making repairs so performance data could begin being collected without lost time. A few
other notes on this data:
Drainage material installation continued on side slopes during this period.
Two small blips in the primary liner performance data were noted, at two and five weeks after the liner
repairs. Based on the construction schedule, it was determined that these increases were likely in response
to the increased normal and live loads associated with placing tire shreds near the lowest point in the cell
expressing construction water from the drainage composite.
The ongoing post-construction primary liner performance data over the first two months was barely 0.1
gpad (1 lphd).
Conclusions
Several conclusions can be drawn from this project.
The Section IV, Cell 1 expansion of the Broome County Landfill was a successful first step in construct-
ing a better landfill liner system in New York State. From the modifications to the liner system, to the use
of tire shreds for drainage and frost protection, to the use of electrical leak location testing as a CQA tool,
each step has been proven to hasten construction and improve overall quality. The increased airspace
and resulting revenues are an added bonus.
The modified design resulted in a rapid determination of an accurate ALR for the cell. By eliminating the
soil components from the middle of the double liner sandwich, the issue of construction water was mostly
removed from the equation and left primarily leakage due to defects. The geotextile components of the
drainage composite may hold minor amounts of water, but this should be released fairly quickly after the
application of the drainage stone (if it will be released at all). The GCL may also hold minor amounts of
water, but the tenacity of the sodium montmorillonite used in these products should continue to hold that
moisture. Any areas of GCL that become saturated and swell during construction should be removed and
replaced prior to covering with the primary geomembrane.
A team approach to construction creates understanding, ownership and pride on behalf of everyone
involved in the construction process. Although both the general contractor and the geosynthetics installer
were widely experienced and respected in New York State, they had never worked together on a project.
The fact that their team produced the results seen is a testament to both their abilities and the approach.
The question has been raised whether the level of care on the project was heightened because the
electrical leak location testing was included in the construction process. Its a good question and may be
true for most instances. However, based on past projects with the construction team, the primary author
believes that the construction team on this project performed as they normally doit just happens to be
at a higher level.
Electrical leak location testing, as a part of the CQA process, is both valuable and accurate. Despite a
team approach and careful construction practices, things still happen. Electrical leak location testing can
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
identify and locate the defects that occur and should be considered for any landfill liner construction proj-
ect. Not only will the testing identify defects, but the location of those defects can also give an indication
of the quality of the geomembrane CQA seam testing process. A number of defects in the seams may
raise flags as to the quality of the work and the seam testingboth destructive and non-destructive.
When it comes time to construct that next cell, well have to remember to get that variance on the de-
structive testing frequency.
Acknowledgements
The authors of this article would like to acknowledge Mario Mike Nirchi (project manager for the New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation [NYSDEC], now retired), Phil Hale and Mike Masur
(president and project manager for Marcy Excavation), and Carl Burdick and Chuck Rhoades (Chenango
Contracting) for their efforts in making this project a success. Additional thanks from the primary author
to Hale and Masur for not complaining too much when they found out how much they had to assist with
the electrical leak location survey. Their assistance produced an excellent testing environment and quality
results. Wed also like to thank Joe Torre (manager, New York Yankees)just to see if anyone is really
reading this part.
References
New York State Department of Environmental Conservation . 6NYCRR Part 360 Solid Waste Manage-
ment
Facilities. Title 6 of the Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations, Subpart 360-2 Landfills.
Phaneuf, R. 2000. Landfill Construction QualityWhat Weve Learned from Electrical Resistivity Test-
ing.
Interface Friction/Direct Stability Testing & Slope Stability. TRI Short Course, Albany, New York.
Phaneuf, R. and Glander, C. 2003. Using Tire Chips in Landfill Leachate Collection and Removal
Systems Under Part 360. Proceedings of the Federation of New York Solid Waste Associations
Solid Waste/Recycling Conference & Trade Show, Bolton Landing, New York.
Phaneuf, R. and Peggs, I. 2001. Landfill Construction QualityLessons Learned From Electrical
Resistivity Testing of Geomembrane Liners. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, v. 19, no. 3, pp. 2835.
Thiel, R., Darilek, G. and Laine, D. 2003. Cutting Holes For Testing vs. Testing For Holes. GFR, v. 21,
no. 5, pp. 2023.
Project Information
Owner: Broome County, N.Y.
Design Engineer: Stearns & Wheler, LLC, Cazenovia, N.Y.
General Contractor: Marcy Excavation Co. Inc., Frankfort, N.Y.
Geomembrane Supplier: Poly-Flex, Grand Prairie, Texas
Geosynthetics Installer: Chenango Contracting, Johnson City, N.Y.
Leak Survey Consultant: Leak Location Services, Inc., San Antonio, Texas
Bradford L. Smith, P.E., DEE is the director of Solid Waste Engineering for Stearns & Wheler,
Cazenovia, N.Y.
Robert J. Phaneuf, P.E., is now the chief of Hazardous Waste Engineering Western Section with
the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), Albany, N.Y.
Kevin Roche is the deputy commissioner of Solid Waste for Broome County, N.Y.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
A recent GFR article described the potential interdis-
ciplinary approaches of using phytoremediation and
geosynthetics in environmental applications (Kelsey
2004). Increasingly, the disciplines of engineering and
natural sciences are cooperating more closely to ad-
dress complex environmental challenges. While we
sometimes still make fun of each other, the implemen-
tation of sound remediation systems clearly requires
both skill sets. Geologists, chemists, biologists and soil
scientists are trained to understand natural processes
(e.g., groundwater flow regimes and geochemical pro-
cesses, fate and transport of contaminants, toxicology
and risk assessment, natural resources management,
etc.), but civil engineers are needed to properly design
and construct the identified remediation systems. Even
more passive, natural systems like phytoremediation
or constructed wetlands need engineering inputs. This article aims
to further narrow the cultural gap between engineers and scien-
tists by introducing the engineering community to major concepts
of phytotechnologies (formerly referred to as phytoremediation) and
some of the exciting opportunities that are available in this field.
Phytotechnologies
Phytoremediation is the use of plants to remediate or contain
contaminants in soil, groundwater, surface water and sediments.
More recently, the term phytotechnologies has been introduced
instead of phytoremediation, since this remedial approach cov-
ers a number of technologies and applications. Over the last two
decades, phytoremediation has emerged as a feasible alterna-
tive to more active and costly technologies, especially for large
areas with relatively low levels of contamination in shallow soils or
groundwater. The technology is rapidly gaining acceptance within
regulatory agencies as well as the public. In general, six main
mechanisms are involved in the application of phytotechnologies
(ITRC 2001):
Phytostabilization is the use of plants to immobilize (inorganic
and organic) contaminants in soil, sediments and groundwater
through absorption and accumulation into the roots, the adsorption
Using plants to mitigate environmental problems
Phytotechnologies in current designs
Photo 1. Phytotechnologies are moving from the lab
into the field, in part through the convergence of engi-
neering disciplines with the natural sciences.
Photo 2. Common reeds (phragmites) are
commonly used in sonstructed wetlands.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
onto the roots, or the precipitation or immobilization within the root zone.
Rhizodegradation refers to the breakdown of (organic) contaminants in soil through the bioactivity that
exists in the rhizosphere (an area a few millimeters away from a root surface).
Phytoaccumulation is the process of metal- or salt-accumulating plants translocating and concentrating
(inorganic) contaminants into the roots and aboveground biomass. In general, plants are harvested, and
recovered inorganics are either recycled (e.g., mining of metals from the harvested plant materials), or
the dried plant biomass is disposed of at an appropriate facility.
Phytodegradation refers to the uptake of (organic) contaminants from soil, sediments and water with
subsequent transformation within plant tissues. Plant enzymatic transformation products are often less
toxic compounds or result in bound residues that are less bioavailable.
Phytovolatilization is the mechanism of uptake and translocation of the (inorganic and organic) contami-
nants into the leaves with subsequent release to the atmosphere through transpiration.
Evapotranspiration (ET) of plants can be used to significantly affect the local hydrology through intercep-
tion of rain on leaf surfaces and transpirational uptake by the plant root system. This process has also
been referred to as phyto-pumping.
The first five mechanisms have been successfully used to remediate or contain contaminated soils and
shallow groundwater, while the use of ET applies more to the management of water (e.g., infiltration control
Figure 1. Phytoaccumulation of arsenic using the fern pteris vittata.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
on landfill caps), and control of plume migration in groundwater (i.e., hydraulic containment). Furthermore,
more than one of these processes can sometimes be operational at the same time. For example, con-
structed wetlands or alternative landfill covers (i.e., phytocaps) might simultaneously involve the processes
of evapotranspiration, rhizodegradation and phytoaccumulation to meet the project objectives.
It becomes apparent that the concept of phytotechnology is fairly broad and includes many more
applications than just the classical contaminant uptake and harvest model that used to be the default
image of phytoremediation. Conceptually, phytotechnologies include a variety of applications ranging from
constructed wetlands to alternative landfill covers, from tree plantations for hydraulic control to the use of
plants for slope stabilization, from planted (riparian) buffers for nutrient management and sediment control
to the classical applications of contaminant uptake and degradation.
If applied to remediation, phytotechnologies are limited by the effective rooting depth of plants, as well
as the phytotoxicity and/or plant-availability of contaminants. Quite often, only a fraction of the total con-
centration of a specific contaminant is in a potentially bioavailable form that is accessible for plant uptake.
It is therefore of utmost importance to carefully characterize and delineate the contaminants present at
a site prior to selecting phytotechnologies as a potential remedial alternative. In some cases, this may
include additional characterization work (and therefore cost) not routinely used when employing more con-
ventional technologies, such as excavation and disposal or pump-and-treat. For example, if one wants to
consider phytoaccumulation of metals as a potential remedial technology, a subset of soil samples should
be submitted for specialty analysis called sequential extraction procedures (SEPs). SEPs have been
developed to estimate which fraction of the total concentration of a given contaminant is bioavailable or
non-bioavailable. It may well be the case that a site contains an inorganic contaminant (e.g., arsenic) at
300 mg/kg (ppm), and only 50% of that total concentra-
tion is plant-available. If the remedial goal is to clean the
site to 25 ppm within a reasonable time frame, one may
exclude phytoremediation from the start of the project.
Again, phytoremediation as a stand-alone technology
is best suited for sites exhibiting relatively low levels of
contamination in shallow soils or groundwater. However,
systems have been implemented in which deeper soils
have been excavated and phytoremediated on-site. For
these systems, geosynthetics could be used to construct
temporary staging/treatment areas in order to prevent
cross-contamination of un-impacted soils with contami-
nated materials. A good example of this approach is the
use of geosynthetics in a constructed treatment area to
prevent leaching of lead to deeper soils and groundwa-
ter after lead has been mobilized (e.g., using chelating
agents) for plant uptake. Since most of the soil-bound
lead is not available for plant uptake, lead has to be
made plant-available in such systems. The exact dos-
age of a mobilizing agent is a tricky undertaking, and
achieving a balance between rendering a contaminant
plant-available and avoiding deep leaching is not easy.
In summary, phytotechnologies have broad applica-
tions and provide great opportunities for engineers and
scientists to pool their respective skill sets in order to meet
Photo 3. Newly constructed wetland cells for
treatment of landfill leachate.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
project objectives. The following case studies illustrate the wide range of opportunities available in this field.
Case studies
Arsenic phytoremediation of soils
A former wood treatment facility in northern Florida has been impacted by arsenic through the historic
use of chromated copper arsenate (CCA). Previous site characterization and remediation efforts resulted
in the excavation and disposal of the most heavily impacted soils. However, residual arsenic contamina-
tion (between 5 and 250 mg/kg) is still present within an approximately one-acre area that was historically
used as a treated timber storage area. GeoSyntec (herein known as the consultant) has proposed phy-
toremediation to clean up shallow arsenic-impacted soils.
A greenhouse study was conducted in cooperation with Edenspace Corp. to evaluate the feasibility of
using this technology. The greenhouse study focused on the use of a brake fern (pteris vittata), which re-
cently had been shown to hyperaccumulate arsenic in its shoots to concentrations as high as 22,000 mg/kg
(Ma et al. 2001). Figure 1 conceptualizes soil arsenic phytoremediation using this fern. Results indicated
that soil arsenic concentrations at the site could be reduced by at least 10 mg/kg on an annual basis, but
also that up to 50% of the total soil arsenic concentration might be in a form unavailable for plant uptake.
However, since highly impacted areas at the site had previously been excavated, the overall site-wide
remedial goals might still be achievable using phytoremediation. Therefore, the consultant recommended
implementing a full-scale phytoremediation system by planting the ferns within the treated timber storage
area. Currently, the overall remedial approach for the site is under review, and the decision to implement
full-scale phytoremediation is still pending.
Constructed wetlands for treatment of contaminated groundwater
Groundwater beneath a large Superfund site in West Virginia has been
impacted by a suite of specialty semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs);
mainly: chlorinated benzenes, nitrobenzene, diaminotoluene, dinitrotoluene
and aniline. As part of a larger remedial strategy, the use of constructed
wetlands for groundwater treatment is being evaluated. The consultant has
teamed with the University of Georgia to test a variety of plant species in
the greenhouse for subsequent use in a pilot-scale field study. The ongoing
greenhouse study focuses on the evaluation of phytotoxicity, contaminant
degradation, fate, and uptake, as well as degradation kinetics and necessary
residence times. Initial results have indicated the need for a pre-treatment step
in order to mitigate observed phytotoxicity when using site-specific ground-
water from worst-case wells. Testing of pre-treatment options include a bio-
augmentation system using microorganisms from the domain Archaea, which
shows great promise in the treatment of wastewater high in organic loading,
ammonia, salinity and many organic contaminants. Encouraging treatment
effects due to the plants as well as the microorganisms have already been
observed. Both surface flow and subsurface flow wetland systems are being
developed for testing at the bench- and pilot-scale. Several plant species for
both wetland types have been included in the study. Figure 2 depicts plant
species commonly used in constructed wetlands applications. The best-per-
forming plants from these greenhouse tests will then be used in a one-year
pilot study to optimize system performance under field conditions. Currently,
Photo 4. Cattails (typha) are
another common species
being utilized with phytotech-
nology and wetland projects.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
the greenhouse and bench-scale
treatability studies are in the final
stages, and the field pilot study is
anticipated to be initiated in late
summer of 2004.
Constructed wetlands for
treatment of landfill leachate
The effective management
of landfill leachate has become
a technical and economic chal-
lenge for many solid waste com-
panies. One option for leachate
management is on-site treatment
using constructed wetlands. Ide-
ally, treated leachate should be
used in a closed-loop system for
on-site irrigation purposes. Alter-
natively, direct discharge may be
feasible depending on the size of
receiving water bodies and the
regulatory framework in a given
state.
The Delaware Solid Waste
Authority (DSWA) has retained
the consultant and its sub-con-
sultants to implement a field pilot
program that uses constructed
wetlands for the treatment of
leachate and subsequent irriga-
tion of a landfill phytocap with the
treated leachate.
The pilot test program in-
cludes three separate leachate
treatability studies in which three
different 1/10th-scale wetland
systems are used to treat the
same quantity of leachate. Pro-
gram 1 consists of a three cell
vertical sub-surface flow wetland
system. Program 2 consists of a
horizontal flow wetland. Program
3 combines a single cell vertical
sub-surface flow wetland with
a horizontal flow wetland. Fig-
ure 3 shows the series of newly
Figure 2. Conceptual layout of a vegetative cover to locally suppress the
groundwater table.
Figure 3. Conceptual design of an alternative landfil cover.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
constructed wetland cells used in the pilot study. Treatment cells for all programs are double lined with
geosynthetics to prevent accidental releases of leachate. In order to assess the performance of the treat-
ment processes, samples of leachate influent and effluent have been collected since September 2003
and analyzed for a suite of biochemical, heavy metal and other inorganic indicator parameters, as well as
other chemical and physical characteristics. The test program is ongoing; however, results thus far have
shown that the three cell vertical wetland system appears to be the most effective approach for treatment
of ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), phosphorous, iron and total suspended solids (TSS).
At the end of the pilot test program, plant tissue samples will be collected and analyzed for nutrient and
metal uptake. Following successful completion of the pilot test, a full-scale constructed wetland system
capable of treating 10,000 gallons of leachate per day will be constructed in 2005. The treated leachate
will be used in a closed-loop system to irrigate a newly designed landfill phytocap.
Riparian buffers and bioretention cells
The Neponset River Watershed Association, in cooperation with the Towns of Milton and Walpole (Mas-
sachusetts), has been awarded grant funding as part of the 2003 Section 319 Clean Water Act (CWA)
Nonpoint Source Pollution Grant Program. The Section 319 program is a national (EPA) program to control
nonpoint sources (NPS) of water pollution. Funding is provided for implementation projects that address
prevention, control and abatement of NPS pollution and that attain environmental results by restoring uses
and/or meeting and maintaining water quality standards. The consultant has been retained to implement
and manage this project.
The funded project targets pollutants that are of concern for both Pine Tree Brook and the Neponset
River. Specifically, the project addresses pathogens (fecal coliform bacteria), organic enrichment and low
dissolved oxygen, and habitat alterations.
The project incorporates a number of structural and non-structural controls for helping to reduce impair-
ments in Pine Tree Brook and the Neponset River due to medium-density residential (sewered) develop-
ment. The goals of the project within the Town of Milton are to:
abate the most pressing sources of NPS bacteria pollution in the watershed through structural controls
such as constructed wetlands and stream buffers
abate NPS bacteria in runoff from residential neighborhoods by implementing public education, best
management practices, and other non-structural approaches
focus on structural and non-structural solutions that foster connections between the resource and stake-
holders through improvement of aesthetic elements in the residential areas and promotion of understanding
of the connection between pollutant sources and impairments (e.g., pet waste initiatives).
The ongoing water quality and wetland resource improvement project involves installation of a planted
tree buffer and six bioretention cells to improve stormwater quality discharges on the north side of Pine
Tree Brook. In addition, flow through an existing 36-in. culvert will be diverted to an enhanced wetland
channel by installation of a flow splitter.
The tree buffer installation will involve the planting of species selected for its unique water quality mitiga-
tion properties, particularly with regard to the benefits derived from functions of the sub-surface root zone
(e.g. water storage capacity of soils, microbial activity, nutrient and pollutant uptake, etc.). Bioretention
cells will be installed to improve stormwater discharge quality at six outfall locations. Bioretention cells are
shallow landscaped depressions that incorporate plantings and a soil mixture with a high infiltration rate.
These cells are used to control runoff volume and timing, and can remove pollutants through the physical,
chemical and biological processes that occur in plants, soil and mulch.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Mitigation of groundwater seeps using vegetation
As part of the overall remedial approach at a Superfund site in the lower coastal plain of Georgia,
the consultant implemented a phytotechnology approach to mitigate groundwater seeps occurring along
portions of a shoreline that separates an upland area from a tidal marsh. A vegetative system has been
designed to prevent the seeps from occurring through maximizing evapotranspiration along the shoreline
using a variety of newly planted and existing tree, shrub and grass species. Figure 2 depicts the con-
ceptual design for the vegetative cover to locally suppress the groundwater table. Species were selected
on the basis of optimal water use throughout the year (also during the non-growing season) and their
ability to tolerate site-specific conditions of elevated salinity. By providing enhanced evapotranspiration
upgradient of and within an area of observed groundwater seeps, the vegetative system is designed to
locally suppress the groundwater table to prevent the seeps from discharging into the estuary. The sys-
tem was constructed in November 2003 using a mix of larger, more mature trees together with existing
shrubs and young tree seedlings. The larger trees consist of a salt-tolerant pine species (Japanese black
pine) to provide evapotranspiration throughout most of the year, and a more salt-tolerant cultivar of hybrid
poplars, which transpire large amounts of water during the growing season. Native slash pine seedlings
were planted to supplement the mature plantings in order to increase the areal coverage. Similar to other
phytotechnology approaches using woody vegetation, it will take a few years before canopy closure is
achieved and the full pumping effect can be observed.
Alternative cover systems
The consultant is providing remedial design and construction management services for the redevelop-
ment of a Superfund site in Virginia as a recreational and economic resource. The scope of work includes
the detailed design for the closure of approximately 100 acres of surface impoundments containing sulfate
sludges and fly ash and engineering support during project implementation. These surface impoundments
are located within the 100-year flood plain adjacent to the Shenandoah River.
The design of the lightweight geosynthetic cover system incorporates state-of-the-art capping techniques
combined with the use of on-site materials (fly ash) to gain construction access over the low-strength sulfate
sludges. The phyto-enhanced soil cover system incorporates the use of selected vegetation species and
trees to increase evapotranspiration (ET) from the cover soil, thereby reducing the infiltration of precipita-
tion through the cover into the closed units. Figure 3 illustrates a conceptual layout for a phyto-enhanced
cover system. Computer modeling (e.g., UNSAT-H) has been used to demonstrate the appropriateness of
this approach and to help in designing proper tree planting densities. Construction of the phyto-enhanced
cover system was substantially completed in 2003. The cover system design anticipated a period of five
years to establish mature vegetation (native grasses and trees) and incorporated temporary drainage
features during this interim period. Due to construction timing and weather-related issues, some additional
re-vegetation measures will likely be required in 2004 to assure that design criteria are attained.
Conclusions
Phytotechnology is still an emerging field, but has many promising applications. The idea of a passive,
solar-driven system that uses an aesthetically pleasing design appeals to many stakeholders. Over the
last decade, the regulatory community has shown an increased proclivity to include innovative strategies
for site remediation. Site managers responsible for cleanup like the idea of a low maintenance approach
that enhances the site redevelopment potential, and the public embraces the idea of an aesthetically pleas-
ing approach that improves the local community while mitigating environmental risks. The case studies
presented have been selected to provide the reader with an overview of the range of potential applica-
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
tions. Basic research has already demonstrated the proof-of-concept that these technologies work for
many applications at the laboratory or greenhouse level, but more full-scale field applications need to be
implemented throughout different climate zones to evaluate the long-term performance of these systems
under real-world climatic and growth conditions. Both scientists and design and construction engineers
are called upon to increase their cooperative efforts to make these systems successful.
References
ITRC. 2001. Phytotechnology Technical and Regulatory Guidance Document. Interstate Technology
and Regulatory Cooperation (ITRC) Work Group (April), www.itreweb.org/PHYTO2.pdf.
Kelsey, C. 2004. Phytoremediation: an interdisciplinary approach. GFR, v. 22, n. 2, pp. 1416.
Ma, L.Q., Komar, K.M., Tu, C., Zhang, W., Cai, Y., and Kennelley, E.D. 2001. A fern that hyperaccu
mulates arsenic. Nature, v. 409, p. 579.
Herwig Goldemund, Ph.D., works for GeoSyntec Consultants, Atlanta; www.geosyntec.com.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
During the EuroGeo 3 conference in
Munich (March 2004), Adrian Needham,
Dr. Robert Koerner, Vladimir Nosko, and
Dr. Ian Peggs held a workshop and dis-
cussion on the subject of geomembrane
service life. (See Highlights on the next
page.) The talk was well-attended, al-
lowed for input from designers repre-
senting many countries, and brought to
the forefront one of the most important,
though seldom discussed, concerns in
the profession: making the designed
service life a reality.
Field-authored articles commonly de-
scribe site conditions, project goals, cho-
sen materials and construction windows.
Other notes are included and expanded
upon, depending on the articles focus.
For example, factor of safety calculations
and regulator concerns. All of these ele-
ments help transfer knowledge between
engineers, facility owners, installers and
many others. However, the service life of
the materials is rarely acknowledged. The
ancillary factors influencing a successful
service life are also commonly passed
over. This is certainly not the result of an
oversight by project engineers. A design
life is always part of the plan. Furthermore, regulatory bodies, professional installation teams and quality
assurance measures take us most of the way towards ensuring that what we get is what we want.
More vigilance required
The construction industry has adopted polymeric technologies for far more than environmental applications
such as landfill lining and hazardous waste containment. For example, decorative ponds are lined with
geomembranes and commercial property retaining walls depend upon geogrid reinforcement. But it isnt
clear that a distinction is made between the specifications needed for smaller, commodity applications
(e.g., decorative ponds) and larger, more environmentally sensitive applications (e.g., hazardous waste
containment). This is an alarming, albeit expected, scenario, given the seeming obscurity of the products.
A discussion thats gaining momentum
The service life of geomembranes
LOCATION CAUSE FREQ.
FLAT FLOOR 78%
STONES 81%
HEAVY EQUIPMENT 13%
CORNER, EDGE 9%
STONES 59%
HEAVY EQUIPMENT 19%
WELDS 18%
UNDER PIPES 4%
STONES 30%
WELDS 27%
HEAVY EQUIPMENT 14%
WORKER 15%
CUTS 14%
PIPE PENETRATIONS 2%
WELDS 91%
WORKERS 8%
CUTS 1%
ROAD, STORAGE STRUCTURE, ETC. 7%
HEAVY EQUIPMENT 43%
STONES 21%
WORKERS 19%
WELDS 17%
Table 1. Locations, causes and frequency of damage to geomem-
branes during installation (Nosko and Touze-Foltz 2000).
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Most construction professionalsmost engi-
neersjust do not have the right background
to fully understand how to use polymeric ma-
terials. They do not fully understand how they
work, though they clearly see why they want
to use them. Whether you monitor an irrigation
canal or a golf course pond, you quickly note
the benefits of retaining more water. Landfill
owners can create leachate retention ponds,
and process and reuse the leachate (see Phy-
totechnologies on page 28). And, of course,
anyone who takes stock of what goes into their
own garbage bins, and then speculates on
what is in the neighbors, understands the need
for protecting our groundwater from municipal
solid waste (MSW) landfills.
The rapid proliferation of designs using
geosynthetic materials has even generated
interest among insurance companies. Failures
resulting from installation practices (Table 1)
or poor designs can lead to millions of dollars
of litigationeven for projects that are not as
complex (e.g., golf course ponds) and which
should serve as projects on which an engineer
gains experience. More discussion is clearly
needed.
Initial solutions
Experience really is the clarion call here: the
experience to know that geomembranes are
often manufactured to be highly effective in a
very narrow range of uses (that is, the materi-
als are often site- and design-specific); not all
high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes are the same; HDPE is just one of many geomembrane
types, each of which has its unique performance advantages and limitations.
Furthermore, the cost of proper on-site assurance measures pales in comparison to cost of repairing
poor construction. Liner tears that stem from earthwork operations and the use of heavy equipment are just
too common to be acceptable. See Evolution of a better landfill liner on page 20 for a case study on New
York States experience with landfill liners, and how a continually refined process of design, construction
and oversight has led to an exemplary approach.
Call for submissions
The Needham et al. presentation encouraged international discussion. In that spirit, GFR solicits reader
response regarding failures that have changed the way they or engineers in their region approach projects;
and reports of the most successful ways youve found in design, regulation, installation, etc. to preserve
Highlights from Needham, Peggs, Koerner
and Noskos workshop,
March 2004, Munich:
Responsibilities rest with regulators, owners, design engineers,
manufacturers, fabricators/installers, construction quality as-
surance (CQA) firms, earthworks contractors, operators.
Regulator. Knowledgeable staff who do not only decide to
do an electrical integrity survey at the end of construction;
who do not require that high density polyethylene (HDPE)
be used for every liner application; who do not expect a zero
leakage rate through a single liner.
Owner. Hire experienced design engineer, adequate CQA
staff, and a CQA firm that is independent and reports directly
to the owner or engineer; conduct CQA measures as soil
cover is being applied to geosynthetic lining; require liner
integrity surveys.
Design engineer. Do not practice outside your area of ex-
pertise; design for electrical integrity survey; hire experienced
installer; ensure manufacturer/installer can meet specifica-
tions; ensure adequate CQA is performed, from subgrade to
cover soil; require electrical integrity survey.
Manufacturer/installer. Generate fully integrated quality
assurance/quality control (QA/QC) documents; deliver QA/
QC documents with products.
CQA. Generate integrated CQA plan; use experienced
staff; use sufficient staff; record failing data; monitor cover
soil placement.
PowerPoint versions of the presentations and links to other
important documents, such as the United Kingdom Envi-
ronmental Agencys report The likely medium to long-term
generation of defects in geomembrane liners, is available
online at www.geosynthetica.net.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
a projects design goals. Contact the Editors, +1 651 225 6988, e-mail gfr@ifai.com, Web site www.gfr-
magazine.info.
Contacts
Adrian Needham, Edge Consultants, +44 161 4366767, e-mail edge@edgeconsultants.co.uk, Web site
www.edgeconsultants.co.uk.
Vladimir Nosko, Sensor DDS, e-mail nosko@sensor.sk, Web site www.sensoriep.com.
Robert Koerner, Geosynthetic Institute, +1 610 522 8440, e-mail mashley@dca.net, Web site www.
geosynthetic-institute.org.
Ian Peggs, I-Corp International, +1 561 655 2060, e-mail icorp@geosynthetic.com, Web site www.geo-
synthetic.com.
References and further reading
Nosko, V. and Touze-Foltz, N. 2000. Geomembrane liner failure: modeling of its influence on
containment transfer. Proceedings of the second European geosynthetics conference.
Bologna, Italy. pp. 557560.
Peggs, I., and Peggs, E. 2003. Improving projects, economy and industry. GFR, v. 21, no. 7, pp.
1415.
Phaneuf, R., and Peggs, I. 2001. Landfill construction quality. GFR, v. 19, no. 3, pp. 2835.
Richardson, G. 2002. Surface impoundment design goals. GFR, v. 20, no. 3, pp. 1617.
Thiel, R., Darilek, G., and Laine, D. 2003. Cutting holes for testing vs. testing for holes. GFR, v. 21,
no. 5, pp. 2023.
Failure analysis notes from Richardson
(2002), Surface impoundment design
goals:
...industry and personal experience show that poor
designs continue to fuel construction delays, insur-
ance claims and litigation.... The designers assumption
of total liner impermeability was particularly foolish
given that the reservoir design provided no protection
to the geomembrane, and that staff would be repeat-
edly walking directly on the geomembrane during the
reservoirs construction....all on-site soils were broad-
graded (i.e., contained a very wide range of particle
sizes). Additionally, the materials were gap graded in
that they lacked particles in the pea-gravel-to-coarse-
sand size.... As water flows through a soil, it will tend
to remove the smaller-sized particles such as silts and
fine sands. These smaller noncohesive particles are
normally prevented from movement in a broad-graded
soil by the coarse sands....
After failure, the liner was so distressed that its initial
condition could not be confirmed.
Photo 1. A significant lenght of geomembrane was
pulled from the batten strip. Within 24 hours of being
filled, the retention basin lost 1 ft. of water. Withing
another 24 hours failure was evident, the pond was
drained and needed to be rehabilitateda costly
requirement.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
Liner and cover systems that use geomem-
branes, geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs), geo-
textiles and other fabrics are well-established
necessities in many segments of engineering.
The materials used, however, are often site-
specificfor example, designed to a certain
chemical resistance while having a specified
thickness and allowing differential settlement.
The variables can be many, and they can
confuse clients. Designers can help alleviate
confusion by learning a bit more about the total
project, not only material specifics but right
down to the equipment that will be used on and
with the materials.
Most engineers and contractors do not
spend much time thinking about how materials
are being welded. Few evaluate the equipment
options, assuming, rightly, that installers are
making these selections and that professional
welders are providing their services.
But welding is vital to the performance
of an installation, because there is a
limit to the manufactured size of mate-
rials like polyethylene geomembranes.
Thus, panels or sheets must be joined
either off-site by a fabricator (Photo 1),
on-site as part of installation (Photo 2),
or through a combination of methods.
Factory work, of course, reduces the
amount of site labor, but not all materi-
als are widely amenable to this. Specific
materials, site conditions and regula-
tions may warrant on-site work only.
No matter where its done, the proj-
ects integrity is at stake. And welding
equipment makers and fabricators offer
a unique perspective on the profession: first-hand knowledge of the ways materials respond when high
heat is applied to them. Discovering these advantages and risks may give a design engineer new ideas
on project approaches. You can often find the equipment in photographs in GFRthe instruments look
On site and in the factory, welding equipment affects your designs success
Welding equipment: a quiet component of success
Photo 1. Many PVC panels were prefabricated for this Chilean
site.
Photo 2. Double fusion welding the smooth overlaps of a structered
LLDPE geomembrane.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
like space guns, or tool boxes on wheels, or miniature vacuumsbut they are seldom referred to. Yet,
there is so much that can be learned by investigating welding methods and equipment.
Take advantage of the opportunity
Again: there isnt a need to be concerned. The welding of geosynthetic materials is not a cottage industry,
not for equipment makers, and not for installers. In fact, tremendous advances are occurring in this area
of the field. For a testament to the skill of equipment design and use, read Bradford L. Smiths article on
page 20. In particular, pay close attention to where defects in the liner were discovered versus where de-
fects were expected in the past. Welding technology (and leak location equipment) is outpacing much of
the field and transforming how we plan, permit and execute a project.
Some basics
Extrusion, hot air, and wedge welding are three principal means for joining materials. Extrusion welding
machines are generally smaller and lighter and used for detail work, such as seaming around pipes and
other tricky angles. Hot air and wedge welding machines are used more in the open, such as along the
floor of a landfill or the slope of a reservoir lining.
In equipment product data, the welding speed is often noted, and to an extent this is of value, but less
so for the designer. As with cars there is a practical limit to what a machine can do and what its operator
should do.
Perhaps more important for the designer is to consider the material flexibility. For example, high
density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes, which can be fairly rigid (though remain highly versatile),
generally respond better to wedge welding, since the wedge contact transfers heat directly into the
material. This deeper heat can help ensure the proper seam.
More flexible materials, such as PVC, often respond successfully to hot air machines. Gases released
during PVC welding can be damaging to some wedge compositions, so controlling the overall temperature
of the seam might be accomplished best with hot air.
Ultimately, a great deal comes down to the individual operator. Design engineers who learn about
the equipment have one more way to stay better informed on a project. Know what your installers are
using, and youll have one more level on which you can communicate with them.
Specs and certification
Welding methods may be specified in a project planby regulation or designer influence. Large projects,
such as a hazardous waste landfill, are more likely to see this. Commodity installations, such as smaller
ponds, rarely see specifications come into play.
Currently, the International Association of Geosynthetic Installers (IAGI) offers an HDPE welding cer-
tification program, as well as language to help require that certified welders are used during installation.
For the latest on IAGI programs and resources, contact Laurie Honnigford, IAGI Managing Director, at
iagi@iagi.com, +1 651 554 1895.
Resources
The firms listed here manufacture or distribute welding equipment, or provide in-factory fabrication ser-
vices. Some companies offer on-site demonstrations, training and instructional videos. Most offer product
specifications and affiliated literature on their Web sites.
Companies who were in contact with GFRs staff during production of this issue include:
Concord Geotechnical LLC, +1 603 659 0909, www.concordgeotech.com. Contact Stephen Hobbs.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
DemTech Services Inc., +1 530 621 3200, www.demtech.com. Contact Dave MacLaury.
Miller WeldMaster, +1 330 833 6739, www.millerweldmaster. Contact Jeff Sponseller.
NovaWeld, 800 500 1581, www.
novaweld.com. Contact Glenn Lippman.
Plastic Welding Technologies, +1 530 622 2791, www.plasticwelding
technologies.com. Contact Greg Yaple.
PolyWeld USA Inc., +1 281 821 4156, www.polyweldusa.com. Contact Ali Ahmad.
Sinclair Equipment Co., +1 530 626 9386, www.sineqco.com. Contact Frank Sinclair.
Other firms can be found in the 2004 Specifiers Guide, such as Clements National (www.cadillacprod-
ucts.com), Heely Brown (www.heelybrown.com), Malcom Co. (www.malcom.com), and Leister Process
Technologies (www.leister.com). CK
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
1
Poland was admitted to the European Union in May
after meeting a number of requirements, including tight
environmental standards. This was no easy feat. The
country had suffered ecologically disastrous levels of
pollution after years of infrastructure neglect during
the waning years of the Soviet Union. Lemna Interna-
tional of Minneapolis, Minn., has been instrumental in
Polands cleanup, building over 80 wastewater treat-
ment ponds during the past 15 years.
Poland is a predominantly rural country of villages
located 5 km apart with populations of around 6,000.
Whereas other contractors might have proposed a
centralized urban solution requiring an expensive pip-
ing system with permanent concrete structures, Viet
Ngo, Lemnas founder and CEO, adapted his design
to local conditions. The result is an affordable, de-cen-
tralized, flexible, less intrusive system of wastewater
treatment.
The key is a series of treatment lagoons around the countryside that use natural biological processes.
Where enclosed systems are necessary, modular insulated covers are used. For protection of the sur-
rounding area, the lagoons are lined with geomembranes.
Ngos biological process for wastewater treatment uses a floating aquatic plant, duckweed or lemna-
ceae. The species thrives throughout the world and takes up nitrogen and phosphorus from the water.
Later, the plant matter may be harvested and used as fertilizer, completing the cycle.
This tiny plant became the namesake for a company that has completed more than 250 infrastructure
projects in 30 countries and currently has $2.5 billion worth of projects under development.
Origins
Ngo first demonstrated this process at the Devils Lake North Dakota Municipal Treatment Facility in 1987.
Nine serpentine channels cover an area of 36 ha (90 acres) filter over 13,000 m3 (17,000 yd.3) of water
per day. Geotextile curtains, or baffles, guide wastewater through the lagoon. The surface plants provide
an attractive continuous green zone; the Devils Lake project has received attention in art magazines and
books as well as scientific journals.
A wastewater treatment facility in the Blue Ridge Mountains of Cleveland, Ga., provides another ex-
ample. The lagoon follows the contours of the land and incorporates a rock outcropping. The facility is a
good neighbor, blending into the landscape surrounding this scenic town.
Indeed, Ngo aims to transform wastewater treatment facilities that are necessary pieces of infrastruc-
ture usually hidden away or disguised, into interesting, even artistic, parts of the landscape.
Wastewater treatment as art
Figure 1. Composed of casings of closed cell insula-
tion between two sheets of durable geomembrane, the
covers offer a biologicaly friendly means fo treating
wastewater.
August 2004
Volume 22, Number 6
Cover system
Ngo has applied his creativity to the design of other water treatment system components. Often odor, heat
loss, algae and gas collection must be controlled, so a covering system is necessary. While most of the
companys installations in Poland are aerobic, using an oxygen and duckweed process, some required
an anaerobic environment to provide treatment. These projects use a modular insulated cover system
(LemTec) that consists of individual casings that are laced together during installation to completely cover
the liquid in a lagoon, pond, basin or tank. The casings are composed of closed cell extruded polystyrene
insulation sealed between two sheets of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane. With an insula-
tion R-factor from 10 to 30, the cover functions particularly well in cold climates to retain heat and improve
treatment rates. The floating cover is engineered for a custom fit with openings for mechanical equipment
and walkways and hatches to access submerged equipment. Designed to accommodate fluctuating water
levels, the cover rises and falls to conform to the basic geometry of a lagoon, pond or structure.
Lemnas patented biological processes and cover systems have quantifiable positive impacts on the
environment. The biological process requires no chemicals, and the cover system, which prevents sunlight
from reaching the water surface and eliminates the growth of algae, means that less chlorine is necessary
to treat potable water in a reservoir. Another product, a proprietary Gas Collection System, a variation of
the modular cover system, traps and contains the gases that are the result of the biological treatment of
effluent from industrial processes. This bio-gas is collected in a duct system and is either flared or used
for fuel in place of natural gas or fuel oil.
Regina M. Flanagan, an associate landscape architect in St. Paul, Minn., writes about the intersec-
tion of public art and design with social and environmental issues.

Geocell Design Principles

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Geocell Design Principles

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

August 2004

Volume 22, Number 6

Вам также может понравиться