• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20 (2002) 321–342
Case studies showing the growth anddevelopment of geotextile sand containers:an Australian perspective
S.J. Restall
a
, L.A. Jackson
b
, Georg Heerten
c
, W.P. Hornsey
a,
*
a
Soil Filters Australia Pty Ltd., P.O. Box 727, Southport, Queensland 4215, Australia
b
International Coastal Management, P.O. Box 7196 G.C.M.C., Gold Coast 9726, Australia
c
Naue Fasertechnik GmbH & Co., Wartmuntsr. 1 D-32312, Luebbecke, Germany
Received 10 October 2001; received in revised form 14 March 2002; accepted 10 May 2002
Abstract
Soil Filters Australia Pty Ltd has been involved in the manufacture and installation of geotextile containers in a variety of forms since early 1984, this relates to 17 years experience inthe field.This paper outlines the historical development of the types of materials used for geotextilecontainers and the diversity of applications in which these containers are being used. The typeof geotextile used for the containers varies depending on installation conditions. Thisinformation has been compiled from years of experience. The range of application for theseproducts is extensive and covers areas such as scour protection, groynes, berms, artificial reefsand containment of hazardous materials.The development of this form of coastal protection has developed to such a stage that inmany cases it is no longer regarded as an alternative construction method but rather thedesired solution. This is not to say that there is not a great deal still to be learnt from this typeof protectionInitially the main emphasis was on hydraulically filled geotextile tubes (typically 1.2m
+
)used mainly as groynes to protect beaches. With time this focus has changed to individualcontainers used in coastline protection and marine structures (reefs).
r
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Geotextile; Containers; Tubes; Coastal; Australia*Corresponding author. Tel.: +61-7-5539-3600; fax: +61-7-4439-4027.
E-mail addresses:
srestall@soilfilters.com.au (S.J. Restall), Jackson@onthenet.com.au (L.A. Jackson),gheerten@naue.com (G. Heerten), whornsey@soilfilters.com.au (W.P. Hornsey).0266-1144/02/$-see front matter
r
2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.PII: S0266-1144(02)00030-4
 
1. Introduction
A significant number of structures in the Australasian region have beenconstructed using sand contained in geotextile forms over the last 20 years. Thepractical experience has resulted in an evolution of the state of the art with improvedmaterials, design methods and construction methods. With the increasing number of diverse community groups involved in the process of consultation, planning andapproval, in some cases geotextile structures are providing solutions to coastalprotection and improvement where traditional materials and their impacts and costshave not been acceptable to the community and approval authorities.A range of coastal protection projects using sand-filled geotextile structures havebeen constructed in Australia at sites from estuarine to open coast since 1985.Numerous identified sites are as listed below:
*
Green Island
*
Gold Coast Broadwater
*
North Kirra Groyne
*
Russell Heads
*
Lake Victoria
*
Maroochydore River and Beach
*
Kinka Beach
*
Great Keppel Island
*
Hamilton Island
*
Troubridge Island
*
Airlie Island
*
Towra Point
*
Belongil Spit
*
Stockton Beach
*
Motueka NZ
*
Waihi NZ
*
Narrowneck Reef 
*
Maroochydore Groyne.Selected benchmark projects have been evaluated and show the progression to thepresent ‘‘state of the art’’.
2. Benchmark projects
 2.1. North Kirra Groyne 2.1.1. Project location
North Kirra (Fig. 1), Gold Coast, Queensland.
 2.1.2. Date constructed 
September 1985.
S.J. Restall et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20 (2002) 321–342
322
 
 2.1.3. Principal 
Gold Coast City Council.
 2.1.4. Description
120m long
Â
5m high sand-filled groyne.
 2.1.5. Cost
B
Aus$350,000 (cost of the rock alternative was estimated at Aus$600,000).
 2.1.6. Project objectives
A
t
emporary structure was needed to retain nourishment to restore the erodedbeach, whilst long-term nourishment solutions were resolved to restore the longeroded southern Gold Coast beaches. The eroded conditions of these beaches hadlong been associated with the economic down turn of the immediate area due to poortourism figures (Jackson, 1987).
 2.1.7. Site conditions
Easterly facing open surf beach with an offshore max wave height of >12m.
 2.1.8. Community requirements and constraints
As the site is a popular surfing area and site of the local surf life saving club,therefore the structure had to be safe for swimmers and surfers. It also needed to beremovable if necessary after a permanent solution was implemented.
Fig. 1. North Kirra Groyne.
S.J. Restall et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 20 (2002) 321–342
323
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...