Technical Note

Finite-Element Analysis on the Stability of Geotextile

Tube–Reinforced Embankments under Scouring
Hyeong-Joo Kim, A.M.ASCE1; Myoung-Soo Won2; and Jay C. Jamin3
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: Scouring is a significant problem on river bank and coastal protection systems. Severe scouring can cause damaging consequences
to geotextile tube embankment structures. In this study, five case scenarios of an embankment system supported by stacked geotextile tubes
were analyzed using a commercially available finite-element analysis software. These case scenarios include (1) conventional geotextile tube
stacking on ground base foundation; (2) geotextile tube stacking on gravel bedding foundation; (3) geotextile tube stacking on excavated foun-
dation; (4) geotextile tube stacking on excavated foundation with gravel bedding; and (5) fortification of stacked geotextile tubes by riprap
protection. Each case scenario is simulated under normal loading and critical loading conditions with and without scouring at the base toe
of the embankment system. Results suggest that the potential problems that occur during scouring and critical states of the embankment system
instigate failures that could destabilize the geotextile tube retaining structure. Among all the case scenarios considered, additional fortification
by riprap increases the performance and global stability of the geotextile tube embankment system. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-
5622.0000420. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geotextile tubes; Finite-element analysis (FEA); Scouring; Horizontal displacements; global stability.

Introduction
The practice of using geotextiles as a form of reinforcement has
significantly advanced the design and improved the performance of
embankment structures, particularly those that were built over weak
soils. There have been numerous studies on geotextile-reinforced
embankments (Madhavi Latha et al. 2006; Taechakumthorn and
Rowe 2012; Yapage et al. 2013). Geotextile tubes, which were
initially used for the containment and dewatering of contaminated
materials, are currently used as retaining structures. High-strength
geotextile tubes have been successfully used worldwide in the
construction of river bank and coastal protection structures such as
containment dikes, revetments, offshore breakwaters, groins, and
seawalls. Pilarczyk (2003, 2008) suggested numerous applications
of geotextile tubes for coastal protection against erosion caused by
natural processes such as the action of waves, tides, currents, and
changes in sea level. In South Korea, geotextile tubes have been used
as cofferdams and containment dikes for the construction of long
artificial island strips (Shin et al. 2002; Cho et al. 2008) and for
coastal erosion mitigation (Shin and Oh 2007). Presently, the
Saemangeum Development Project on the west coast of the Korean
peninsula [Fig. 1(a)] uses a considerable amount of stacked geo-
textile tubes as core or retaining structures for perimeter dikes and
embankments for future land reclamation that will be developed
1
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National Univ., Gunsan
573-701, Republic of Korea. E-mail: kimhj@kunsan.ac.kr
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Kunsan National Univ., Gunsan
573-701, Republic of Korea (corresponding author). E-mail: wondain@
kunsan.ac.kr
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
Kunsan National Univ., Gunsan 573-701, Republic of Korea. E-mail:
jaminjc@kunsan.ac.kr
Note. This manuscript was submitted on November 25, 2013; approved
on May 15, 2014; published online on June 12, 2014. Discussion period
open until November 12, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This technical note is part of the International Journal
of Geomechanics, © ASCE, ISSN 1532-3641/06014019(13)/$25.00.
into various hubs for businesses, industry, agriculture, and tourism
[Fig. 1(b)]. The core/stacked tubes are constructed by hydraulically
filling long geotextile containers with dredged marine soil mainly
obtained from the river estuary around the coastal cities of Gunsan,
Gimje, and Buan [Fig. 2(a)]. Dredged sand is then filled in the
stacked geotextile tube retaining structure to construct the em-
bankment roadway [Fig. 2(b)].
Geotextile tubes are made of strong, sustainable, and permeable
textile fibers that can contain, filter, and reinforce soil. The integrity
of the geotextile structure depends on the type of material fill and
geosynthetic used. Also, the permeability of the soil fill and geo-
textile has a significant influence on the tube structure. The apparent
opening size (AOS) and the rate at which filter cakes form are among
the few factors that will hinder the water outflow. In consequence,
the strength of the soil infill in geotextile tubes with high water
content will not be sufficient to support tube stacking (Koerner and
Koerner 2006). There are various studies on geotextile tubes in the
literature. Liu and Silvester (1977) formulated early theoretical
solutions for determining the shape of a tube filled with water.
Leshchinsky et al. (1996) developed a computer program for cal-
culating the geometry and stresses on the encapsulating geotextile
of the tubes based on design parameters such as pumping pressure,
allowable circumferential tensile force, unit weight of the fill ma-
terial, and tube height. Numerous studies on the stability of stacked
geotextile tubes under wave actions can be found in the works of van
Steeg et al. (2011), das Neves et al. (2011), Bezuijen and Pilarczyk
(2012), and Kriel (2012). However, there are only a few studies on
the stability of stacked geotextile tubes subjected to scouring. Kim
et al. (2013) recently performed finite-element analyses (FEAs) on
ground modification techniques for improved stability of geotextile
tube–reinforced reclamation embankments subjected to scouring.
Significant scouring commonly takes place at the sides of the
geotextile tubes facing the shore. This is caused by wave breaking,
undertow-driven currents, and wave overtopping mass flux-driven
currents (Weerakoon et al. 2003). In this study, the authors used
the commercially available finite-element software PLAXIS 2D 8.2
to evaluate the performance of various foundation conditions of

© ASCE 06014019-1 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 1. (a) Project location (Image © Google, Image © 2014 CNES/Astrium, Image © 2014 TerraMetrics, Image © 2014 DigitalGlobe, Image © NSPO
2014/Spot Image); (b) site development plan

a stacked geotextile tube structure retaining an embankment under Design Considerations

normal and critical loading conditions and subjected to scouring.
The focus of this study is to evaluate, by means of FEA, the stacked
geotextile tubes’ global factor of safety (FS) if scouring occurs.
Verification of the results through closed-form solutions is not in-
cluded in this study. Closed-form solutions for stacked geotextile
tubes can be found in the works of Biggar and Masala (1998), Plaut
and Klusman (1999), and Shin and Oh (2007).
Embankment Geometry and Subsoil Profile
The physical properties of the embankment fill, geotextile tube fill,
and subsurface soil profile of the roadway embankment section
constructed at the agricultural zone of the Saemangeum Develop-
ment Project are used in this study. The cross section of the

© ASCE 06014019-2 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

 embankment is shown in Fig. 3. Three layers of stacked geotextile
tubes illustrated in Fig. 4 were used to support a 10.4-m-high
roadway embankment. The geotextile tubes in the first and sec-
ond layers have theoretical diameters of 4.0 m, and the topmost layer
has a theoretical diameter of 2.0 m. The embankment shown is
supported by multilayered subsurface soil profiles (Fig. 5). The
subsurface soil layer consists of 9 m of silty sand, 7 m of sand,
7.5 m of silt, 2 m of gravel, 12 m of clay, another 2.3-m gravel layer,
2.2 m of weathered soil, and 4 m of weathered rock. The approxi-
mate highest water level is 5.2 m.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 2. (a) Geotextile tube filling; (b) perimeter dikes for Saemangeum land
reclamation
Fig. 3. Embankment cross section
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
The embankment is modeled as a two-dimensional (2D) plain-
strain symmetric. The modeled embankment section (geometry in-
put) is shown in Fig. 6. PLAXIS 2D is a geotechnical software
program that has been developed specifically for the analysis of
deformation and stability in geotechnical engineering projects such
as excavations, foundations, embankments, and tunnels. It is as-
sumed in this study that the geotextile tubes attained final height after
the dewatering and consolidation processes before the construction
of the embankment fill was started. A 13-kPa surcharge loading
based on the Korean standard activity load design requirement is
applied to simulate superimposed traffic loads.
Material Properties
The geotextile tube fill, embankment fill, and subsurface soils were
modeled as linearly elastic perfectly plastic materials with the Mohr-
Coulomb criterion. The Mohr-Coulomb model is considered as a
first approximation for real soil behavior and highly recommended
where soil parameters are not known with great certainty (Brinkgreve
2002). The basic input parameters of the Mohr-Coulomb model
for the geotextile fill, embankment fill, and subsoil are dry unit
weight (gunsat ), saturated unit weight (g sat ), Young’s modulus of
elasticity (E), permeability coefficient (k), Poisson’s ratio (n), co-
hesion (c), dilatancy angle (c), and angle of friction (w). The soil
input parameters shown in Table 1 were determined from triaxial
and in situ tests. The geotextile tube was modeled with an elastic
material–type assignment. The thickness of the geotextile tube used
in the construction was 3 mm with modulus of elasticity of
7:0346 3 109 Pa. Physical characteristics of the geotextile tube are
shown in Table 2.
Boundary Conditions and Mesh Generation
The soil profile above the weathered rock layer is a very stiff soil
where vertical and horizontal ground movements are considered
negligible. Thus, a total fixity was assigned to the bottom layer
where it is assumed to be completely rigid and impermeable. On
the other hand, the vertical boundary conditions were fixed against
horizontal movements but allowed to move freely along the vertical
direction. The meshed element of the embankment model is shown
in Fig. 7. Fifteen-node triangular elements were used to discretize the
geotextile tube fill, embankment fill, and underlying soil layers. For
the global coarseness of the mesh, the authors initially performed
analyses using both coarse and very fine settings. It was found that
the coarseness of the mesh does not have significant effects on the
results. However, for the analysis presented in this paper, the mesh
was generated using a very fine global coarseness setting for element
distribution. Interface elements were used to model slippage be-
tween soil and geotextiles. Elastic-plastic models were used to
describe the behavior of the interface of the soil and structure.
06014019-3 Int. J. Geomech.
 Calculation Type
Two types of finite-element calculations were used in this study.
The first is the plastic calculation, which is selected to carry out an
elastic-plastic deformation analysis. This deformation includes the
vertical and horizontal displacements of soil and geotextile fiber.
For safety analysis, the phi-c reduction is used to calculate the
global FS.

Foundation Improvements and Geotextile

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 4. Stacked geotextile tube detail Tube Fortification

The geotextile tube–reinforced embankment/containment dike con-
structed at Saemangeum will be constructed with armor rock or
riprap protection. In this paper, additional applied ground base
modifications such as gravel bedding and excavated foundation for
the geotextile tube structure are included in the FEA. The results for
the performance of the geotextile tube structure system with forti-
fication and ground base modifications are compared with the
geotextile tube embankment system without foundation improve-
ments and fortification. Five cases of geotextile tube embankment
system are analyzed using FEA: (1) conventional geotextile tube
stacking on ground base foundation; (2) geotextile tube stacking on
gravel bedding foundation; (3) geotextile tube stacking on excavated
foundation; (4) geotextile tube stacking on excavated foundation
with gravel bedding; and (5) fortification of stacked geotextile tube
by riprap protection. Properties and cross section details of the
embankment systems mentioned are illustrated in Fig. 8. Case 1 is
based on the normal practice of geotextile tube construction wherein
the tubes are directly built on a suitable flat ground base in dry land or
underwater. Normally, the base is prepared by removing sharp
objects and leveling the ground foundation as uniformly as possible
to provide a constant geotextile tube height. Then the tubes are
positioned in place and hydraulically or mechanically filled with
Fig. 5. Subsurface soil profile slurry. The idea of applying ground modifications for Cases 2, 3, and
4 was suggested by the authors under the assumption that these will

Fig. 6. Plane-strain symmetric embankment model

© ASCE 06014019-4 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

 Table 1. Soil Properties
Parameter
Soil type g unsat (kN × m )
3
g sat (kN × m )
3
K (m=day) E (kPa) n c (kPa) f (degrees) c (degrees)
Geotextile tube fill 16.5 17.5 0.3456 18,000 0.40 5.0 30 0
Embankment fill 16 18 0.3456 20,000 0.40 9.0 30 0
Silty sand 15 17.5 0.864 6,000 0.40 5.0 25 0
Sand 16.5 18 0.864 30,000 0.35 0 35 0
Silt 16 18 0.0432 15,000 0.38 30 10 0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Gravel 17 19 2.592 35,000 0.35 0 38 0

Clay 16 18 0.0432 15,000 0.38 30 10 0
Weathered soil 17 19 0.3456 60,000 0.32 22 30 0
Weathered rock 19 20 0.0432 360,000 0.30 35 32 0
Gravel bedding 19 21 1 120,000 0.35 0 38 0
Riprap boulders 19 21 2.592 350,000 0.30 0 38 0

Table 2. Geotextile Properties

Normal stiffness
Tube Material model Theoretical diameter (m) Final tube height (m) (EA) (kN=m) Tensile strength (kN=m) Permeability (cm=s)
Tube 1 Linear elastic 4.0 2.20 21,104 200 1 3 1024
Tube 2 Linear elastic 4.0 2.20 21,104 200 1 3 1024
Tube 3 Linear elastic 2.0 1.10 21,104 200 1 3 1024

Fig. 7. Finite-element mesh of the embankment model

provide additional passive and sliding resistance to the geotextile
tube structure. The additional riprap construction in Case 5 has been
applied in the literature (Fowler et al. 2002; Pilarczyk 2008), mainly
to add stability and increase the service life of the tubes by providing
protection against vandalism and ultraviolet degradation.
Finite-Element Simulation
Case 1: Conventional Geotextile Tube Stacking on
Flat Ground Base Foundation
An embankment of three layered stacked geotextile tubes with no
foundation improvement or riprap protection constructed directly
above a flat seabed surface is analyzed. Conventional construction
methods were used during the installation of the geotextile tube
retaining structure. The typical cross section for this case is shown in
Fig. 8(a).

Case 2: Geotextile Tube Stacking on Gravel

FEM Simulation Cases
Bedding Foundation
The details of the embankment cases are discussed in this section. The basic concept of this method is to increase the friction at the
Embankment specifications are also presented in Fig. 8. bottom through an aggregate interlocking mechanism, therefore

© ASCE 06014019-5 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Stacked geotextile tube foundation improvements and fortification: (a) Case 1; (b) Case 2; (c) Case 3; (d) Case 4; (e) Case 5

increasing the sliding stability of the geotextile tube structure
as well as providing a firmer foundation bed at its base. To sim-
ulate the gravel bedding at the bottom, a 0.3-m-thick element
cluster is added to the base of the first layer of geotextile tubes
[Fig. 8(b)].
Case 3: Geotextile Tube Stacking on Excavated Foundation
Shallow dredging 0.5 m deep was performed before the place-
ment and filling of the geotextile tubes. The basic concept is
to provide future allowance for the effects of scouring while
providing additional passive resistance at the toe when scouring

© ASCE 06014019-6 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

 does not exist. The cross section for this case is illustrated in
Fig. 8(c).
Case 4: Geotextile Tube Stacking on Excavated Foundation
with Gravel Bedding
Excavation 0.8 m deep was performed before positioning and
filling the geotextile tube. Gravel bedding of 0.3-m thickness was
then added to the bottom of the excavation and compacted. The
concept is to make a firmer base and provide future allowances
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
against scouring while providing additional passive resistance at
the toe and base of the geotextile tube [Fig. 8(d)].
Case 5: Fortification of Stacked Geotextile Tubes by
Riprap Protection
Boulders or rubble stones were constructed at the face of the
geotextile tube after the filling and stacking construction. This
method will give additional embankment sliding resistance as well
as provide protection to the vulnerable geotextile fabric. Details for
the geotextile embankment profile with riprap protection are
shown in Fig. 8(e).
Scouring Simulation
Scouring aprons were not applied at the base of the stacked geo-
textile tubes in this study. This analysis is performed under the as-
sumption that the scouring apron has failed and that scouring has
occurred at the base and toe of the geotextile tube embankment.
Fig. 9. Removal of soil cluster in PLAXIS 2D
Fig. 10. PLAXIS 2D construction phases: (a) staged embankment construction; (b) normal loading conditions (saturated embankment); (c) critical
loading conditions: undrained embankment; (d) critical conditions: drained embankment
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
Scouring is simulated by physically removing some soil cluster in
the modeled geometry at the base and toe of the geotextile tube
embankment as shown in Fig. 9. The maximum depth of scour for
all the geotextile tube embankment systems was set to 0.5 m.
Staged Construction
Staged construction is a feature in PLAXIS 2D in which it is possible
to change the geometry and load configuration by deactivating or
reactivating loads, volume clusters, or structural objects created in
the geometry input. Staged construction enables an accurate and
realistic simulation of various loading, construction, and excavation
processes. The construction phases of the geotextile tube em-
bankment model are illustrated in Fig. 10. A construction phase is
used to identify the calculation phase and determine the ordering of
calculation phases. The numbers in the illustration represent the
phase sequence during the simulation analysis of each embankment
system. In the initial Phase 1, the surface loading, geotextile material
and fill, embankment fill, and other geometry inputs above the river
bed are disabled. The water level was set to 5.2 m from the surface of
the silty sand layer in the initial phase. During Phase 2, the geometry
cluster of the gravel bedding foundation (Phase 2a) is activated first
(for embankment systems with foundation improvements, i.e., Cases
2, 3, and 4), followed by the simulation construction of the geotextile
tubes in the first layer (Phase 2b). The embankment fill cluster
aligned with the first layer of geotextile tubes is simultaneously
activated with Phase 2b. The second layer of geotextile tubes and
embankment fill is activated in Phase 3, followed by the activation of
the topmost geotextile tube geometry and embankment in Phase 4.
For Phase 5, the riprap cluster (Phase 5a) is activated first for the
embankment system with fortification (Case 5 only). This is fol-
lowed by the activation of the remaining embankment cluster (Phase
5b). The superimposed loading is applied in Phase 6 after the
completion of the embankment construction.
It is assumed in this study that the embankment system is at
saturated state during normal loading conditions (because of rain-
water). Hence, in Phase 7, the phreatic water level was raised toward
the embankment surface. Plastic calculation and phi-c reduction
analyses were performed in Phase 7 to determine the horizontal
displacements and global FS, respectively. Subsequently, plastic
calculation and phi-c reduction analyses were performed on
06014019-7 Int. J. Geomech.
 the embankment system under normal loading conditions sub-
jected to scouring by deactivating a soil cluster at the toe base of the
geotextile tubes on the first layer.
For the embankment system under critical conditions, two sce-
narios were taken into consideration. First, during Phase 8, the water
level of the river is drained but the embankment system remains in
saturated condition [Fig. 10(c)]. Second, during Phase 9, the water
level of the river is drained and the embankment system is in drained
condition [Fig. 10(d)]. Plastic calculation and phi-c reduction analyses
were performed for Phases 8 and 9 with and without scouring.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
at all nodes at the end of each calculation step in each FEA case are
represented by arrows as shown in Fig. 11(a). The total incremental
displacement result is shown in Fig. 11(b). The shaded total dis-
placement increments presented are particularly useful to observe
the localization of deformations within the soil when plastic failure
occurs.
Horizontal Displacement under Natural Loading
Conditions for Embankment Systems with and

Results and Discussion
Visualizations for the deformation of the finite-element model for
Case 5 are shown in Fig. 11. The horizontal displacement components
without Scouring
Fig. 12 shows the variations in horizontal displacements of the
geotextile tubes for the embankment profiles under normal loading
conditions before scouring [Fig. 12(a)] and after scouring [Fig.
12(b)]. The maximum horizontal displacement occurs at the base toe

Fig. 11. PLAXIS 2D results: (a) horizontal displacements; (b) total incremental displacements

© ASCE 06014019-8 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 12. Horizontal displacement under natural loading conditions:
(a) without scouring; (b) with scouring
of the geotextile tubes. The sliding resistance of the stacked geo-
textile tubes is increased with the application of additional ground
base improvements and fortification.
The decrease in horizontal displacements of the stacked geo-
textile tubes if ground improvements and fortification are applied is
presented in Figs. 13(a and b) for embankment systems with and
without scouring, respectively. The decrease in horizontal dis-
placement (%decrease ) is defined as
xCase1 2 xCasen
%decrease ¼  100 (1)
xCase1
where xCase1 5 horizontal displacements of the stacked geotextile
tube embankment system for Case 1; and xCasen 5 horizontal
© ASCE 06014019-9
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
Fig. 13. Percentage decrease in horizontal displacement with respect
to Case 1: (a) normal loading conditions without scouring; (b) normal
loading conditions without scouring
displacement of the geotextile tubes with ground base improvement
and fortification (Cases 2–5). The sliding stability for the stacked
geotextile tubes with gravel base was slightly increased. A 6%
decrease in horizontal displacements was observed at the stacked
geotextile tubes’ base toe, both with and without scouring con-
ditions. Passive resistances were developed at the base toe of the
stacked geotextile tubes for Cases 3 and 4. The embankment system
in Case 5 has the maximum resistance to sliding because of the
additional armor rock fortification.
Fig. 14(a) shows the percentage increase in horizontal dis-
placements of the stacked geotextile tubes if scouring occurs. The
percentage increase in horizontal displacement (%increase ) of an
embankment system when scouring occurs is defined as
Int. J. Geomech.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 14. Percentage increase in horizontal displacement if scouring
occurs: (a) normal loading state; (b) critical loading state
xScour 2 xNoScour
%increase ¼  100
xScour
where xNoScour 5 horizontal displacement of the embankment sys-
tem in consideration; and xScour 5 horizontal displacement of the
same embankment section subjected to scouring. The embankment
system with riprap fortification has the minimum increase in hori-
zontal displacement during scouring.
Horizontal Displacement under Critical Loading
Conditions for Embankment Systems with and
without Scouring
Fig. 15 shows the variations in horizontal displacements of the
geotextile tubes for the embankment profiles under normal loading
© ASCE
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
Fig. 15. Horizontal displacement under critical loading conditions:
(a) without scouring; (b) with scouring
conditions before scouring [Fig. 15(a)] and after scouring [Fig.
(2)
15(b)]. The horizontal displacements of the embankment systems
under critical conditions are nearly two times the horizontal dis-
placements of the embankment systems under normal loading
conditions. Still, maximum horizontal displacement occurs at the
bottom geotextile tube layer. The sliding stability of the stacked
geotextile tubes is increased with the application of additional
ground base improvements and fortification.
The decrease in horizontal displacement of the stacked geotextile
tubes, if ground improvements and fortification are applied, is pre-
sented in Figs. 16(a and b) for embankment systems with and
without scouring, respectively. The decrease in horizontal dis-
placement (%decrease ) is obtained by Eq. (1). The sliding stability for
the stacked geotextile tubes with gravel base was slightly increased,
whereas passive resistances were developed at the base toe of the
06014019-10 Int. J. Geomech.
 stacked geotextile tubes for Cases 3 and 4. The embankment system
in Case 5 has the maximum resistance to sliding because of the
additional armor rock fortification.
Fig. 14(b) shows the percentage increase in horizontal dis-
placement of the stacked geotextile tubes if scouring occurs. The
percentage increase in horizontal displacement (%increase ) of an
embankment system when scouring occurs can be obtained using
Eq. (2). Under scouring conditions, the embankment system with
riprap fortification has the minimum increase in horizontal
displacement.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
without scouring is shown in Figs. 17(a and b) illustrates the tube
under critical conditions with scouring. It can be seen that without
scouring during critical conditions, the extreme total displace-
ment of the tube is ∼235 mm. However, during scouring, the
extreme total displacement increased to 363 mm. Hence, scouring
has a significant effect on the geotextile tube deformation. The
deformation of the tubes caused by scouring should be taken into
consideration in designing stacked geotextile tubes.

The deformation of the bottommost forward-facing geotextile Safety Factors

tube for Case 1 under critical conditions is shown in Fig. 17. The
The global FSs for Cases 1–5 using the approximate method and
arrows, with scale factor equivalent to 5, represent the total
FEM during normal, scouring, and critical states are shown in
displacements of the geotextile. The tube under critical conditions
Table 3. The geotextile tube embankment with riprap protection
(Case 5) provides the highest performance for overall global stability
of all the studied geotextile tube embankment profiles.
Global FSs for the geotextile tube embankment are reduced
when the structure is subjected to scouring or if it reaches critical
state. For Case 5 during scouring state, at least 13% of the global FS
was reduced from the geotextile tube embankment retaining struc-
ture at normal state (Fig. 18). The FS was reduced by ∼45% from

Fig. 17. Tube deformation under critical conditions: (a) without

scouring; (b) with scouring

Table 3. Global FSs

Case
State 1 2 3 4 5
Normal state FS (no scour) 1.56 1.59 1.61 1.63 2.33
Fig. 16. Percentage decrease in horizontal displacement with respect Normal state FS (with scour) 1.55 1.57 1.58 1.59 2.03
to Case 1: (a) critical loading conditions without scouring; (b) critical Critical state FS (no scour) 1.13 1.14 1.19 1.21 1.27
loading conditions without scouring Critical state FS (with scour) 1.08 1.10 1.15 1.19 1.22

© ASCE 06014019-11 Int. J. Geomech.

Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019


Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 18. Comparison between the percentage decreases in global FS of
the embankment systems with respect to normal loading conditions
without scouring
Case 5 during the critical state. Clearly, the additional improvement
by riprap protection for the geotextile tube embankment system has
increased the global stability of the retaining structure. Percentage
decrease of the embankment systems global FS (%FS-decrease ) is
defined as
FSCase1 2 FSCasen
%FS-decrease ¼  100 (3)
FSCase1
where FSCase1 5 Case 1 embankment system safety factor; and
FSCasen 5 safety factor of embankment systems with ground base
improvements and fortifications (Cases 2–5).
Conclusions
This study performs FEA using PLAXIS 2D to simulate and un-
derstand the effects of various loading conditions under scouring on
the overall stability of geotextile tubes and evaluate the perform-
ances of various mitigation and prevention measures such as
alternative construction and design methods. The following con-
clusions are drawn:
•
Scouring has a significant effect on the deformation behavior and
global stability of the geotextile tube–reinforced embankment
system.
• The applied foundation improvements and geotextile tube for-
tifications improve the overall performance and stability of the
sand-filled geotextile tube–supported embankments.
• With applied foundation improvements such as the gravel base
method and recessed base method, horizontal displacements of
the geotextile tube embankment are generally less compared with
the conventional geotextile tube design and construction method.
•
Combining the recessed base with gravel bedding foundation
contributed altogether to the overall geotextile tube systems’
performance; however, this method also increases the construc-
tion cost and may further extend the construction period. Hence,
the recessed base construction is shown to provide the econom-
ical alternative.
© ASCE 06014019-12
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
• The fortification method by riprap protection offers the max-
imum improvement to the overall performance of the stability of
the geotextile tube embankment system. Moreover, the riprap
method also provides protection to the vulnerable geotextile
tubes against destructive elements such as water wave forces,
river currents, sharp objects, and ultraviolet degradation.
When deciding whether the foundation improvements will be
applied, however, associated issues in terms of additional costs and
extended construction schedule will typically govern, in comparison
with the increase in achieved performance of the geotextile tube
embankment system.
Acknowledgments
This project is supported by the Research and Development Policy
Infrastructure Program (grant code 12TRPI-C064124-01) funded by
the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport of the Republic
of Korea.
References
Bezuijen, A., and Pilarczyk, K. W. (2012). “Geosynthetics in hydraulic and
coastal engineering: Filters, revetments and sand filled structures.” Proc.,
5th European Geosynthetics Congress, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Ghent Univ., Ghent, Belgium, 65–80.
Biggar, K., and Masala, S. (1998). Alternatives to sandbags for temporary
flood protection, Alberta Transportation and Utilities, Disaster Services
Branch, Edmonton, Canada, and Emergency Preparedness Canada,
Ottawa Æhttp://dsp-psd.pwgsc.gc.ca/Collection/D82-46-1999E.pdf æ
(Mar. 22, 2014).
Brinkgreve, R. B. J. (2002). PLAXIS 2D—Version 8 (reference manual),
Balkema, Rotterdam, Netherlands.
Cho, S. M., Jeon, B. S., Park, S. I., and Yoon, H. C. (2008). “Geotextile tube
application as the cofferdam at the foreshore with large tidal range for
the Incheon bridge project.” Proc., 4th Asian Regional Conf. on Geo-
synthetics, Springer, Berlin, 591–596.
das Neves, L., Lopes, M. L., Veloso-Gomes, F., and Taveira-Pinto, F.
(2011). “Experimental study on the effect of geotextile encapsulated-
sand systems on a frontal beach.” J. Coastal Res., SI 64, 2027–2031.
Fowler, J., Stephens, T. C., Santiago, M., and de Bruin, P. (2002). “Amwaj
islands constructed with geotubes, Bahrain.” Proc., CEDA Conf.,
Central Dredging Association (CEDA), Delft, Netherlands, 1–14.
Kim, H. J., Jamin, J. C., and Mission, J. L. (2013). “Finite element analysis of
ground modification techniques for improved stability of geotubes
reinforced reclamation embankments subjected to scouring.” Proc.,
2013 World Congress in Structural Engineering and Mechanics, Korea
Advanced Institute of Science and Technology, Daejeon, Republic of
Korea, 2970–2979.
Koerner, G. R., and Koerner, R. M. (2006). “Geotextile tube assessment
using a hanging bag test.” Geotext. Geomembr., 24(2), 129–137.
Kriel, H. J. (2012). “Hydraulic stability of multi-layered sand-filled geo-
textile tube breakwaters under wave attack.” M.S. thesis, Stellenbosch
Univ., Stellenbosch, South Africa.
Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, O., Ling, H. I., and Gilbert, P. A. (1996).
“Geosynthetic tubes for confining pressurized slurry: Some design
aspects.” J. Geotech. Engrg., 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:
8(682), 682–690.
Liu, G. S., and Silvester, R. (1977). “Sand sausages for beach defense work.”
Proc., 6th Australasian Hydraulics and Fluid Mechanics Conf., In-
stitution of Engineers Australia, Barton, Australia, 340–343.
Madhavi Latha, G., Rajagopal, K., and Krishnaswamy, N. R. (2006).
“Experimental and theoretical investigations on geocell-supported
embankments.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)1532-3641(2006)6:
1(30), 30–55.
Pilarczyk, K. (2003). “Alternative systems for coastal protection: An
overview.” Proc., Int. Conf. on Estuaries and Coasts, Zhejiang Uni-
versity Press, Hangzhou, China, 409–419.
Int. J. Geomech.
 Pilarczyk, K. (2008). “Alternatives for coastal protection.” J. Water Resour.
Environ. Eng., 23, 181–188.
Plaut, R. H., and Klusman, C. R. (1999). “Two-dimensional analysis of
stacked geosynthetic tubes on deformable foundations.” Thin Walled
Struct., 34(3), 179–194.
PLAXIS 2D 8.2 [Computer software]. Delft, Netherlands, Plaxis.
Shin, E. C., Ahn, K. S., Oh, Y. I., and Das, B. M. (2002). “Construction and
monitoring of geotubes.” Proc., 12th Int. Offshore and Polar Engi-
neering Conf., J. S. Chung, T. Matsui, J. Chen, and Y. Kyosuka, eds.,
Vol. II, International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE),
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 12/17/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Cupertino, CA, 469–473.
Shin, E. C., and Oh, Y. I. (2007). “Coastal erosion prevention by geotextile
tube technology.” Geotext. Geomembr., 25(4–5), 264–277.
Taechakumthorn, C., and Rowe, R. K. (2012). “Performance of rein-
forced embankments on rate-sensitive soils under working conditions
© ASCE 06014019-13
Int. J. Geomech., 2015, 15(2): 06014019
considering effect of reinforcement viscosity.” Int. J. Geomech.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GM.1943-5622.0000094, 381–390.
van Steeg, P., Vastenburg, E., Bezuijen, A., Zengerink, E., and de Gijt, J. G.
(2011). “Large-scale physical model tests on sand-filled geotextile tubes
and containers under wave attack.” Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Coastal
Structures, Japan Society of Civil Engineers, Tokyo.
Weerakoon, S., Mocke, G. P., Smith, F., and Al Zahed, K. (2003). “Cost
effective coastal protection works using sand fill geotextile containers.”
Proc., 6th Int. Conf. on Coastal and Port Engineering in Devloping
Countries (COPEDEC VI), World Association for Waterborne Trans-
port Infrastructure (PIANC), Brussels, Belgium.
Yapage, N. N. S., Liyanapathirana, D. S., Poulos, H. G., Kelly, R. B., and
Leo, C. J. (2013). “Numerical modeling of geotextile-reinforced
embankments over deep cement mixed columns incorporating strain-
softening behavior of columns.” Int. J. Geomech., 10.1061/(ASCE)
GM.1943-5622.0000341, 04014047.
Int. J. Geomech.