A material which started a new era in geotechnical engineering: geosynthetics

  • Erol Guler
Technical Paper
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection from GeoMEast 2017 – Sustainable Civil Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology


In this paper, the opportunities that can be provided by using geosynthetics are introduced. Many examples mentioned in the text show explicitly that geosynthetics can provide effective engineering solutions for a variety of projects ranging from extremely important to very simple projects. In order to illustrate the benefits of the geosynthetics, two applications were chosen as example applications. These were chosen from the applications where geosynthetic products are used most frequently, namely: reinforced walls and barrier systems. The most important research papers were referenced in these two subjects and examples from projects in Turkey were given. New geosynthetic products are brought to the market every day. To highlight this aspect, a relatively new, however, well-established technique was chosen: geosynthetic encased columns. Basic concepts of this technology is given. Many similar developments in the geosynthetic industry necessitates that engineers are up to date with the new developments in this field. It is well known that besides providing very efficient engineering solutions, use of geosynthetics also allows to reduce the construction time and cost. Recently, survivability issues are becoming as important as the other concerns. Therefore, at the very end of the paper examples are given of how the use of geosynthetics can reduce the carbon dioxide footprint.


Geosynthetics Reinforcement Barrier Sustainability 


  1. 1.
    Adams M, Nicks J, Stabile T, Wu T, Schlatter W, Hartmann J, (2011) Geosynthetic reinforced soil integrated bridge system, interim implementation guide. FHWA-HRT-11-026, p 159Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Alexiew D, Brokemper D, Lothspeich S (2005) Geotextile encased columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selection and pre-design graphs. In: Proc. Geofrontiers 2005, AustinGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Alexiew D, Raithel M, Kuster V, Detert O (2012) 15 years of experience with geotextile encased granular columns as foundation system. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Ground Impr. IS-GI, ISSMGE TC 211, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Anon (2011) “EBGEO: recommendations for design and analysis of earth structures using geosynthetic reinforcements” German Geotechnical Society (DGGT). Ernst & Sohn, Essen-BerlinGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Asif M, Muneer T, Kelly R (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ 42:1391–1394CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Athanassopoulos C, Vamos RJ (2011) Carbon footprint comparison of GCLs and compacted clay liners. In: The 24th annual GRI conference, Dallas, March 16, 2011, pp 142–157Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of stone columns. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-RD-83-026Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barroso M, Touze-Foltz N, von Maubeuge K, Pierson P (2006) Laboratory investigation of flow rate through composite liners consisting of a geomembrane, a GCL and a soil liner. Geotext Geomembr 24:139–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Basbug E (2012) Dynamic behavior of geogrid reinforced segmental block walls under earthquake loads. Ph.D. Thesis, Bogazici UniversityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Belton, J et al (2008) Using geosynthetics to meet the challenge of improving material resource efficiency. In: Proc. EuroGeo4, Scotland, Paper #128Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (1998) Seismic response analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced soil wall. Geosynth Int 5(1–2):127–166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bathurst RJ, Hatami K, Alfaro MC (2002) Geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls and slopes–seismic aspects. In: Shukla SK (ed) Geosynthetics and their applications. Thomas Telford, pp 327–392Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC (2009) Design of mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes. FHWA NHI-09-083, p 684Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bogazici University. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake Research Institute.
  15. 15.
    Bonaparte R, Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2002) Assessment and recommendations for optimal perf. of waste containment systems. EPA/600/R- 02/099Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bouazza A (2002) Geosynthetic clay liners. Geotext Geomembr 20:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Caterpillar Performance Handbook (2010) Edition 40Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chen Y, Lin W, Zhan TLT (2010) Investigation of mechanisms of bentonite extrusion from GCL and related effects on the shear strength of GCL/GM interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 28:63–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chulski KD (2015) A thesis entitled: life cycle assessment and costing of geosynthetics versus earthen materials. University of ToledoGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    DAI Environmental, Inc. (2010) AMCOL Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Int. ReportGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2007) Waste containment facilities: guidance for construction quality assurance and quality control of liner and cover systemsGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Daniel DE (2000) Hydraulic durability of geosynthetic clay liners. In: Proceedings of the 14th GRI conference (hot topics in geosynthetics), Las Vegas, pp 118–135Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Di Prisco C, Galli A, Cantarelli E, Bongiorno D (2006) Geo-reinforced sand columns: small scale experimental tests and theoretical modeling. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on geosynthetics, Yokohama, pp 1685–1688Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    El-Emam M, Bathurst RJ (2004) Experimental design, instrumentation and interpretation of reinforced soil wall response using a shaking table. Int J Phys Model Geotech 4(4):13–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    El-Emam M, Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (2004) Numerical modeling of reinforced soil retaining walls subjected to base acceleration. In: 13th World conference on earthquake engineering, Vancouver, p 15Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Erten D, Guler E (2016) Carbon footprint comparison of geogrid reinforced and reinforced concrete retaining walls in Turkey. In: 6th European geosynthetics congress, Ljubljana, pp 1414–1428Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    FHWA (2009) Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Publication No. FHWA-NHI-10-024 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA GEC 011 Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ghionna V, Jamiolkowski M (1981) “Colonne di ghiaia” X. Ciclo Di Conferenze Dedicate Ai Problemi Di Meccanica Dei Terreni E Ingegneria Delle Fondazioni Metodi Di Miglioramento Dei Terreni. Politecnico Di Torino Ingegneria, Atti Dell’istituto Di Scienza Delle Costruzioni, no 507Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Guler E, Alexiew D, Basbug E (2012) Dynamic behavior of geogrid reinforced segmental block walls under earthquake loads. In: 3rd international conference on new developments in soil mechanics and geotechnical engineering, 28–30 June 2012, Near East University, Nicosia, North CyprusGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Guler E, Togrol E, Merdin E (1985) “Zemin Mekaniği Uygulamalarında Geotekstillerin Kullanılması”, İnşaat Mühendisleri Odası, Türkiye İnşaat Mühendisliği 8. Teknik Kongresi, Ankara, pp 173–187Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Guler E, Hamderi M, Demirkan MM (2007) Numerical analysis of reinforced soil-retaining wall structure with cohesive and granular backfills. Geosynth Int 14(6):330–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Guler E, Enünlü AK (2009) Investigation of dynamic behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining structures under earthquake loads. Bull Earthq Eng 7:737–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Guler E, Çiçek E, Demirkan MM, Hamderi M (2012) Numerical analysis of reinforced soil walls with granular and cohesive backfills under cyclic loads. Bull Earthq Eng 10(3):793–811CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Guler E, Selek O (2014) Reduced-scale shaking table tests on geosynthetic reinforced soil walls with modular facing. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(6)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Guler E, Alexiew D, Abbaspour A, Koç M (2014) Seismic performance of geosynthetic encased stone columns. In: TRB 93rd annual meeting, Paper No. 14-1446, p 15Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hatami K, Bathurst RJ (2005) Development and verification of a numerical model for the analysis of geosynthetic-reinforced soil segmental walls under working stress conditions. Can Geotech J 42:1066–1085CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kaliakin V, Khabbazian M, Meehan C (2012) Modeling the behavior of geosynthetic encased columns: influence of granular soil constitutive model. Int J Geomech 12(4):357–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Khabbazian M, Kaliakin VN, Meehan CL (2009) 3D numerical analyses of geosynthetic encased stone columns. In: Proc. of selected papers of the 2009 int. foundation cong. and equipment expo, pp 201–208Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Koerner R (2009) Geosynthetics: a key toward sustainability, geosyntheticsGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Koseki J, Tatsuoka F, Watanabe K, Tateyama M, Kojima K, Munaf Y (2003) Model tests of seismic stability of several types of soil retaining walls. In: Ling H, Leshchinsky D, Tatsuoka F (eds) Reinforced soil engineering advances in research and practice. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 378–385Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Robinson PNJ, Quirk CM (2008) The UK aggregate levy and its implications to geosynthetics. In: Proc. EuroGeo4, Scotland, Paper #80Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Koerner RM (2000) Emerging and future developments of selected geosynthetic applications. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng 126(4):293–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Koseki J, Bathurst RJ, Guler E, Kuwano J, Maugeri M (2006) Seismic stability of reinforced soil walls. In: 8th international conference on geosynthetics, 18–22 September 2006, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Lee KZZ, Chang NY, Ko HY (2010) Numerical simulation of geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under seismic shaking. Geotext Geomembr 28:317–334CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ling HI, Liu H, Kaliakin VN, Leshchinsky D (2004) Analyzing dynamic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. J Eng Mech 130(8):911–920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Ling HI, Liu H, Mohri Y (2005) Parametric studies on the behavior of reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. J Eng Mech 131(10):1056–1065CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ling HI, Mohri Y, Leshchinsky D, Burke C, Matsushima K, Liu H (2005) Large-scale shaking table tests on modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 131(4):465–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ling HI, Yang S, Leshchinsky D, Liu H, Burke C (2010) Finite-element simulations of full-scale modular-block reinforced soil retaining walls under earthquake loading. J Eng Mech ASCE 136(5):653–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    McKenna JM, Eyre WA, Wolstenholme DR (1975) Performance of an embankment supported by stone columns in soft ground. Geotechnique 25(1):51–59CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Murata O, Tateyama M, Tatsuoka F (1994) Shaking table tests on a large geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls. In: Seiken Symposium No. 11, pp 259–264Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Özhan H, Guler E (2013) Use of perforated base pedestal to simulate the gravel subbase in evaluating the internal erosion of geosynthetic clay liners. ASTM Geotech Test J 36(3):418–428Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Petrov RJ, Rowe RK, Quigley RM (1997) Selected factors influencing GCL hydraulic conductivity. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 123(8):683–695CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Raithel M (1999) „Zum Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von geokunststoffummantelten Sandsaulen“Schriftenreihe Geotechnik, Heft 6. Universitat Gesamthochschule Kassel, KasselGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Raithel M, Kempfert HG (1999) „Bemessung von Geokunststoffummantelten Sandsaulen“ Die Bautechnik (76), Heft 12, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Raithel M, Kempfert HG (2000) Calculation models for dam foundations with geotextile coated sand columns. In: Proceedings of the int. conf. on geotechnical & geological eng, GeoEng 2000, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Raithel M, Kempfert HG, Kirchner (2005) „Berechnungsverfahren und Bemessung von ummantelten Saulen—Entwicklung und aktueller Stand“ 9. Informations- und Vortragstagung der Fachsektion “Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik” KGEOGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Richardson GN (1997) GCL internal shear strength requirements. Geosynth Fabr Rep 15(2):20–25Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Rowe RK, Abdelatty K (2013) Leakage and contaminant transport through a single hole in the geomembrane component of a composite liner. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:357–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Scalia J, Benson CH (2011) Hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners exhumed from landfill final covers with composite barriers. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Shackelford CD, Sevick GW, Eykholt GR (2010) Hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners to tailings impoundment solutions. Geotext Geomembr 28:149–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Tandel YK, Solanki CH, Desai AK (2012) Reinforced granular column for deep soil stabilization: a review. Int J Civil Struct Eng 2(3)Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Tatsuoka F (2014) Design, construction and performance of GRS structures for railways in Japan. Invited Lecture, First National Conference on Geosynthetics, Honduras, 16–18 JuneGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Trauger RJ (1994) The structure, properties, and analysis of bentonite in geosynthetic clay liners. In: Proc. of the 8th GRI conference: geosynthetic resins, formulations, and manufacturing, GRI, Drexel University, Philadelphia, pp 185–198Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    USEPA (2005) emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-05-001Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    USEPA (2005) Emission facts: metrics for expressing greenhouse gas emissions: carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equivalents. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-05-002Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    USEPA (2008) eGRID-the emissions and generation resource integrated database for 2007. USEPA Agency Office of Atmospheric ProgramsGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    USEPA (2008) Climate leaders guidance for direct emissions from mobile combustion sources. Office of Air and Radiation (6202J), EPA430-K-03-005Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    USEPA (2008) Climate leaders guidance for optional emissions from commuting, business travel, and product transport. Office of Air and Radiation (6202J), EPA-430-R-08-006Google Scholar
  69. 69.
    USEPA (2010) Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emissions. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 98Google Scholar
  70. 70.
  71. 71.
    Yonezawa T, Yamazaki T, Tateyama M, Tatsuoka F (2014) Design and construction of geosynthetic-reinforced soil structures for Hokkaido high-speed train line. Transp Geotech 1:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Yoo C (2010) Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone columns in embankment construction: numerical investigation. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(8):1148–1160CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bogazici UniversityIstanbulTurkey

Personalised recommendations