Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.
(2017)2:36
DOI 10.1007/s41062-017-0090-7
TECHNICAL PAPER
A material which started a new era in geotechnical engineering:
geosynthetics
Erol Guler1
Received: 3 May 2017 / Accepted: 11 June 2017
 Springer International Publishing AG 2017
Abstract In this paper, the opportunities that can be pro-
vided by using geosynthetics are introduced. Many exam-
ples 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 exam-
ple 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.
This paper was selected from GeoMEast 2017—Sustainable Civil
Infrastructures: Innovative Infrastructure Geotechnology.
& Erol Guler
eguler@boun.edu.tr
1
Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Keywords Geosynthetics
Reinforcement
Barrier

Sustainability
Brief history of geosynthetics
Geosynthetics are the materials, produced in general from
polymeric raw materials to give solutions to civil engi-
neering problems. The first manufacture started with the
production of geotextiles, today geosynthetics has become
a family which consists of geogrid, geonet, geomembrane,
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), geofoam, geocell, geopipe,
geotube, geosynthetic encapsulated stone column (GEC)
and geocomposites. The fact that these materials are pro-
duced from polymer materials, creates an important
advantage, that they do not have a corrosion problem. Also
the properties of the polymer, as well as the end product
can be tailored to the needs of the engineer who is the end-
user of these products. Today geosynthetics are success-
fully used in civil engineering, geotechnical engineering,
transportation projects, environmental projects and
hydraulic applications. Geosynthetics offer both more
economic and superior engineering solutions to roads,
railways, airports, embankments, retaining walls, reser-
voirs, channels, dams, erosion control projects, sediment
control projects, storage areas for solid and liquid waste,
bottom liners and caps, pavements, ponds for production
and waste storage of mining activities, fisheries and
agriculture.
The improvement of material behavior by including
elements which have tensile strength is an ancient tech-
nique. To produce the ancient construction element adobe,
mud and chaff is mixed and poured into molds. After
drying it is used as a structural element. Adobe was used
even in the buildings of Chaldeans and Sumerians.
123
36 Page 2 of 21
Ziggurats and Hangings Gardens of Babylon were built by
placing organic fibrous plants between clay in
Mesopotamia.
The first productions and publications about geosyn-
thetics started with the use of geotextiles as filter and
reinforcement in the 1960s. In 1977, the first congress on
Geosynthetics was held in Paris. International Geosyn-
thetics Society (IGS) was established in 1982. Today, with
its Chapters in 43 countries and members over 4000, it has
become an important learned society.
Functions and types of geosynthetics
Initially, the functions of geosynthetics should be men-
tioned. Later on, which geosynthetic products are available
today will be listed. As a result of these two lists, it will be
possible to clearly see which function is appropriate for
which products.
In international literature geosynthetic functions are
listed as: separation, filtration, drainage, reinforcement,
impermeability (barrier), and protection.
Again in the international literature, the main geosyn-
thetic types are listed as: geotextiles, geogrids, geomem-
branes, geonets, geocomposites, prefabricated vertical
drains (PVD), geocells, geosynthetic clay liners (GCL),
erosion control products, vertical impermeability cutoff
materials, geofibers, geopipes, and geofoams.
Detailed definitions of each function and geosynthetic
type will not be stated in this article because of the
restricted space. However, the definitions related to
geosynthetics are given in the following standards: ISO
10318-1 and ISO 10318-2. It is natural that there are var-
ious production methods for each product group. For
instance, geotextiles can be fabricated primarily as woven
or non-woven geotextiles. For woven geotextiles there are
various weaving methods. Also non-woven geotextiles can
be produced through the methods named needle-punching
or spanbonded. The raw material used in the production of
geotextile varies as well. Commonly polypropylene and
polyester are used in geotextile production, but other
materials can easily be used upon specific demand [30].
The geogrids can be fabricated as woven, extruded and
welded and also can be made from various polymers
according to the needs. It is clear, that with the same
production method and raw material, for example in geo-
textiles, it is possible to produce geotextiles of different
tensile strength and permeability, etc. Likewise geomem-
branes are produced from different raw materials with
different thicknesses, surface properties, etc; this variety in
products is an advantage of geosynthetics. Considering the
scientific and technologic level of polymer engineering
today, the properties of the geosynthetics can be well
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
adapted to the needs of the civil engineer who designs the
relevant structures and facilities. In addition to the polymer
properties, production technique can also be varied to allow
fulfillment of the needed function of the product in the
most ideal way. These two degrees of freedom in the
production give opportunity to produce a construction
material which is the most appropriate. This aspect has not
only a significant advantage, but also introduces a vital
problem. Civil engineers, even the geotechnical engineers
do not completely comprehend the details of geosynthetic
products’ functions and designs. Therefore, it is a challenge
to decide which product is the best fit product among the
products made of various raw materials using different
production techniques and have different mechanical and
hydraulic features. That is why it is crucial that the
geotechnical engineer must have detailed information
about geosynthetics. International Geosynthetics Society
(IGS) is an independent learned society which tries to
disseminate knowledge for the appropriate use of geosyn-
thetics. In order to achieve more information about IGS
and geosynthetics and learn about the activities on the
subject of geosynthetics, please visit: http://www.geo
syntheticssociety.org.
Geosynthetic reinforced walls and slopes
Geosynthetic reinforced walls
In civil engineering practice, retaining walls and slopes are
used in order to create an elevation difference. Historically
only masonry walls were used. Today more widely rein-
forced-concrete retaining structures are constructed. If
enough space is available, it is of course also possible to
create a stable slope (Fig. 1). Today, it is also a common
practice to use soil nailed and anchored walls if the wall is
constructed in excavation. In fill conditions a technique
which is taking over the reinforced-concrete retaining walls
are the geosynthetic reinforced soil-retaining structures.
In this article, the design issues of geosynthetic rein-
forced retaining structures will not be discussed, because
the details of the design are a very detailed issue and it is
not possible to fit into a single paper. However, design
manuals for such walls are widely available [4, 27].
One of the reasons for choosing geosynthetic reinforced
retaining structures is the lower cost and the significantly
lower CO2 footprint. However, it is known that these
structures behave much better under earthquake loading
conditions. Therefore, geosynthetic reinforced soil-retain-
ing structures are preferred nowadays more than the rigid
reinforced-concrete retaining walls [43]. Yonazewa et al.
[71] reported a case study about the Hokkaido Shinkasen
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
Fig. 1 Different techniques for
creating an elevation difference:
reinforced-concrete wall;
geosynthetic reinforced wall;
reinforced slope; ordinary slope
Fig. 2 Structural details of GRS integral bridge for Hokkaido Shinkansen [71]
fast train line built in Japan. In this project alone, there is a
total of 3500 m geosynthetic reinforced soil wall with
maximum height of 11 m. In the same project, 29 abut-
ments which have a maximum height of 13.4 m were
constructed as geosynthetic reinforced walls. Also in the
same project, one geosynthetic reinforced soil integral
bridge was built (Fig. 2). This type of geosynthetic rein-
forced integral bridges and bridge piers are getting more
common in time. Also American Highway Authority
(FHWA) has published a new design manual for this type
of bridge piers [1].
What draws our attention most in the example given in
Fig. 3 is that, the reinforced-concrete retaining walls had to
be supported by pile foundations because the bearing
capacity of the soil is not sufficient. However, in the
solution given in the choice (b), in other words, in the
solution with geosynthetic reinforced walls, surface foun-
dations were sufficient. This is because the earth pressure
below the foundation of the geosynthetic reinforced wall
does not increase due to the overturning moment as is the
case in the RC wall. There is no need to mention that the
solution with geosynthetic reinforced wall is both advan-
tageous in terms of time for construction and cost [62]. The
above examples indicate the trust this system has gained in
Page 3 of 21 36
the high-speed railway lines and especially in a country
like Japan where earthquakes are common.
In the light of above information, it can be stated that
geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls are more econom-
ical and superior in terms of engineering features. Another
advantage of geosynthetic reinforced retained walls is that
the wall can be adapted into various geometric conditions
very easily. Since they are not built in panels as reinforced-
concrete walls, they can adapt into quick elevation differ-
ences both at the base and at the top very easily. Obviously,
the curves in the plan view can be very easily followed as
well (Fig. 4).
Geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls not only can
adapt to various geometries easily as explained above, but
also within the cross section it allows for a flexible design.
For instance, it is not possible to construct tiered walls with
the reinforced-concrete walls, since the footing of the
retaining wall cannot be seated on fill ground. The reason
for this is the nature of the stress distribution below a rigid
retaining structure. The pressure distribution enforces a
rotation and fill ground inevitably undergoes some settle-
ments, which cause a tilting in the wall. However, in
geosynthetic reinforced walls, the pressure distribution
below the foundation is uniform, so that the wall can easily
123
36 Page 4 of 21 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36

Fig. 3 A typical pair of embankments retained by conventional-type RWs and GRS RWs at Hokkaido Shinkansen Line [62]

Fig. 5 The tiered retaining wall example (all the stairs are also
constructed using the geosynthetic reinforced wall technique)
Fig. 4 A geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall, constructed in a
V-shaped valley in the United States of America

be seated on the fill ground. Therefore, as can be seen in

Fig. 5, the walls can be built in a tiered manner. Of course
the distance between the two levels (Fig. 6) is an important
parameter and must be considered in the design [13].
Another advantage of geosynthetic reinforced retaining
walls is that they can easily be used when there is a lack of
sufficient distance in front of a massive rock or a rigid
structure. As it is known, the reinforcement normally has to
have a minimum length. However, if there is no full earth
pressure behind the wall due to the self-supporting envi-
ronment, the reinforcement can be made shorter. The same
system can be used in front of a soil nailed excavation
(Fig. 7). Fig. 6 Tiered wall configuration [13]

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36 Page 5 of 21 36

Fig. 7 Minimum recommended geometry of a stable feature or shoring MSE wall system [13]

Geosynthetic reinforced slopes

When the transition between two elevations with a vertical

structure is not absolutely necessary, but there is not
enough space for a natural slope, reinforced slopes prove to
be the optimum solution. Another advantage of reinforced
slopes versus vertical walls, is that vegetation can grow on
it, so esthetically it is more environment friendly. A third
and equally important advantage of reinforced slopes is
that it prevents surface erosion issues which pose a con-
tinuous maintenance problem in unreinforced slopes. In a
road or railroad embankment, reinforced slopes can be
preferred because of the reasons listed above. A major
advantage of reinforced slope in transportation infrastruc-
ture versus natural slopes is that it allows to narrow the Fig. 8 The first geosynthetic reinforced wall example in Turkey;
construction year: 1997
corridor. So less greenfield is disturbed and/or less expro-
priation expenses are paid. The facing can be finished with
a vegetated soil or with various alternative materials. For
instance, the front face can be finished with pavement
elements, gabions, etc.

Examples of geosynthetic reinforced walls

and slopes from Turkey

In Turkey, the first geosynthetic reinforced wall was con-

structed in 1997. A picture of this first practice is given in
Fig. 8. Although this was the first geosynthetic reinforced
wall in the country, it was a back-to-back wall and reached a
height of 10 m. The wall includes also various geometric
and structural complications. For example, the foundation
levels of the two back-to-back walls are different; as it can be Fig. 9 A high geosynthetic reinforced slope in Turkey during the
seen in Fig. 8, there is a ladder, which is made by geosyn- construction phase
thetic reinforced system together with the wall. Foundation
elevations and wall height changes along the wall. Since it is In Fig. 9, a reinforced slope whose height reaches 26 m
an urban road, its top 1 m is designed without reinforcement on its maximum point is seen. The picture shows the sit-
to allow for utilities like water, electricity, etc. uation right after the construction of the reinforced soil.

123
36 Page 6 of 21
The front face will allow this slope to be vegetated and
therefore it is compatible with environment.
In this article, it is not possible to show many pictures,
yet in towns, interstate roads, industrial facilities, residen-
tial projects, etc., many geosynthetic reinforced walls and
slopes have been constructed in Turkey and all around the
world.
Research on geosynthetic reinforced walls
There is a lot of research on geosynthetic reinforced walls.
This article aims mainly to share the most important find-
ings on the effect of earthquake loads on such walls.
Besides the research on the effects of earthquake loading,
there is also a significant amount of research on the use of
marginal soils as backfill. Such materials are generally not
recommended by the specifications; however, suitable ma-
terials obtained from excavations are used anyhow. So to
understand the behavior of geosynthetic reinforced soil-
retaining walls, where the reinforced fill is a marginal soil,
is important. The fines content present in such backfills
causes the whole material to act as a cohesive soil. This is
in a way an advantage in terms of horizontal pressure, but a
disadvantage in terms of drainage. So proper drainage
measures must be carefully designed and implemented. A
summary of research is given below in a categorized
manner.
Finite elements analysis
Bathurst and Hatami [11] built a finite element model of a
geosynthetic reinforced wall with a height of 6 m and with
a rigid panel front. As a result of this quantitative study,
they showed that the magnitude of the tensile stress on the
reinforcement depended on the strength of the reinforcing
material.
El-Emam et al. [25] conducted a shaking table test and
modeled it with finite difference software FLAC. The
height of the wall was 1 m and had a panel shape front
face. They showed that the numerical model has estimated
the shaking table test results very successfully.
Ling et al. [46] conducted shaking table tests and
dynamic centrifuge tests to calibrate the software Diana-
Swaydne-II. Then they modeled geosynthetic reinforced
walls with modular block face with this software. The walls
are 6 m high and have 20-cm-high modular blocks as
facing. The backfill and foundation soils are modeled with
elements that can consider the plastic behavior. With the
help of the numerical model, the effects of soil properties,
earthquake movements and choice of reinforcement
geometry has been investigated. Acceptable permanent
displacements were observed at the end of dynamic anal-
ysis. Tensile forces on the reinforcement were more than
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
double of the tensile forces in the static condition. Soils
undergoing larger plastic deformations, cause less accel-
eration amplifications when compared to soils that undergo
less deformations. Although different reinforcement
lengths caused different lateral displacements and settle-
ments, it has not altered the amplifications of accelerations
much. As the reinforcement length gets shorter, the tensile
forces in the reinforcement and lateral earth pressure
increased.
Lee et al. [44] developed a three-dimensional finite
elements model with the software LS-DYNA. They veri-
fied this software with the help of shaking table tests results
reported by Ling et al. [47]. Experimental results coincided
with numerical model results especially in terms of hori-
zontal earth pressures and horizontal displacements during
the dynamic loads.
Ling et al. [48] did a simulation study for geosynthetic
reinforced walls using finite element method. In order to
verify their numerical model, they used the results of shaking
table tests they conducted in 2005. The numerical model
results and experimental results of wall deformation, tensile
forces on reinforcements and horizontal and vertical accel-
eration time histories were compared. These comparisons
showed that the results are very close to each other.
Guler et al. [31] used full-scale experiments reported by
Hatami and Bathurst [36] in order to confirm the 3.6-m-
high wall model created by the finite element software
Plaxis. Horizontal displacements and earth pressures were
compared and it is seen that the results match successfully.
With the help of finite element analyses, collapse mecha-
nisms of 6 m high geosynthetic reinforced walls were
investigated for both granular and cohesive backfills. The
results of the finite elements analyses showed that under
the working loads, maximum shear stress was seen in the
vicinity of the expected potential shear surfaces. Yet, it also
showed that there was no internal stability problem during
the actual collapse and failure occurred in the external
stability mode (Fig. 10).
A second but equally important finding of this research
was that in the walls with cohesive backfill the tensile
forces developed in the reinforcement was less. As a result
of the numerical model, it is shown that cohesive soils can
be successfully used as backfill materials as long as
appropriate drainage measures are provided.
Guler et al. [33] examined the behavior of geosynthetic
reinforced walls under earthquake loading conditions. Also
here the walls had a height of 6 m and both granular and
cohesive backfill soils were studied. At the end of numerical
study it is indicated that lower displacements were achieved
with stronger reinforcements. However, the tensile forces on
reinforcements increased with increasing reinforcement
stiffness. Increasing the earthquake accelerations by 100%
caused horizontal displacements to increase more than two
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
Fig. 10 Shear strain concentrations under working loads (on left) and at collapse (on right) [31]
Fig. 11 Shaking table model
[24]
times and this showed that accelerations and displacements
do not have a linear relationship. One of the important results
of the study is that wall deformations can decrease in the
order of 50% if cohesive backfill is used instead of granular
backfill. This fact shows again that the cohesive soils can be
an appropriate backfill material if appropriate drainage and
compaction are provided.
Shaking table tests
The first study on this was made by the Japan Railway
Institute in 1994 [50]. Horizontal earthquake accelerations
were given to a wall which was a ‘ scaled model of a 2.5-
m-high wall. It was observed that the reinforced body
moved as a monolithic mass.
Koseki et al. [40] tested model walls whose front face
were panel elements and the length of the reinforcement
was L/H = 0.4. The height of the tested wall was 0.5 m.
The base acceleration was increased gradually until col-
lapse occurred and the failure mode was overturning at the
end of the experiment. Also shear planes were observed in
Page 7 of 21 36
the reinforced zone. Observed collapse surface had an
inclination steeper than expected. Less permanent dis-
placements were seen in the geosynthetic reinforced walls
compared to conventional walls.
Bathurst et al. [12] studied wall models which were 1 m
high and had a block facing. The scale of the model wall was
1/6. El-Emam and Bathurst [24] tested similar walls with
rigid panel facings (Fig. 11). The acceleration magnitude
was increased gradually to 0.5 g and had a dominant fre-
quency of 5 Hz. When the block-to-block and block-to-
geosynthetics interfaces were fixed (experiment no 2 and
experiment no 4, respectively), the performance of the wall
was better than the walls where the block-to-block interfaces
were frictional (experiment no 1). Improvements were
observed as the facing inclinations were reduced (experi-
ment no 3) (Fig. 12). Tensile forces in geosynthetic rein-
forcements remained at values quite lower than their
capacities. On the walls, whose facing element is rigid and
the toe is prevented from movement, it was seen that the toe
takes up to 40–60% of the total horizontal earth pressure. The
increase in the reinforcement length and rigidity and also the
123
36 Page 8 of 21
Fig. 12 Displacement–acceleration relation for different facing types
[12]
Fig. 13 Modular block-reinforced wall model [46]
reduction in the vertical spacing between reinforcements
reduced the horizontal displacements and increased the
critical acceleration needed for the start of failure.
Ling et al. [45, 46] studied three retaining models which
were 2.8 m high, had a modular block facing that had an
inclination of 12 (Fig. 13). Each wall was subjected to the
scaled versions of Kobe earthquake. First, the normalized
version for 0.4 g of the record and then the second version,
which was normalized for the 0.86 g peak value were used.
Walls were instrumented to measure horizontal and vertical
earth pressures, front wall displacements, top surface set-
tlements, reinforcement strains and the accelerations at the
wall facing and backfill. In conclusion, the horizontal dis-
placements under 0.4 g acceleration were very low. Also
for a peak acceleration of 0.86 g a successful behavior was
observed and the measured horizontal displacements were
around 100 mm. Increasing the length of reinforcements
closer to the wall top and decreasing the reinforcement
spacing affected the earthquake performance positively.
Guler and Enünlü [32] tested a 1.9-m-high model wall
which had a model scale of ‘ on a shaking table [14].
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
They also scaled the concrete modular block facing ele-
ments. The model was excited with the scaled horizontal
El-Centro earthquake record. In experiments, two different
reinforcement lengths, L/H = 0.6 and L/H = 0.9, were
used. As a result, geosynthetic reinforced walls performed
well in experiments and there was no significant permanent
displacement at the end of the experiments. Accelerations
on the front face increased at the top of the wall and
measured tensile forces in the reinforcements were higher
than the values predicted by the Rankine theory.
Guler and Selek [34] tested a total of eight model walls with
concrete block facing (Fig. 14). 4 number of 2-m-high ‘-
scaled models; 1 number 1-m-high -scaled and 3 numbers
2-m-high -scaled models were tested. Experimental results
showed that the reinforcement length and frequency had not
significantly affected the factors of amplification. The front
face displacements were not affected significantly by the
reinforcement length, as long as the reinforcement lengths
were fulfilling the minimum conditions in FHWA design
criteria. At the end of the tests no significant residual dis-
placements were measured. Tensile force measured on geo-
textile reinforcements are higher than the design values and
this difference is much more pronounced for the walls with
short reinforcement. The locations of the maximum strains
were connected to compare these with the potential failure
surfaces estimated using the Rankine theory and a reasonable
agreement was observed (Fig. 15).
Guler et al. [9, 29] tested two reinforced-wall models
which were 1.9 m high and were scaled to ‘ scale. The
effects of parameters like horizontal acceleration, rein-
forcement length and strength, type of earth fill (sand and
gravel) on the wall’s seismic performance were examined.
The walls which were designed based on the current design
codes performed well under the earthquake loads. Even for
extreme horizontal accelerations, there was no stability
problem. Acceptable permanent displacements and maxi-
mum deformations were measured during the earthquake
loading. It is stated that the gravel backfilled wall under-
goes less deformation than the sand filled wall.
Liner systems
No doubt that one of the most common field of geosynthetic
applications are impermeability barriers. Impermeability has
a major role both in storing clean water, isolating structures
from groundwater and also in prevention of soil and
groundwater pollution from solid and liquid wastes.
Geomembranes
Today the geosynthetic barriers can be gathered into two
main groups. The first group is called geomembranes and
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
Fig. 14 Model wall details [34]
Fig. 15 Comparison of potential failure surfaces calculated by the Rankine theory and determined from the experiments [34]
are made from various polymers by different methods and
hence also in the literature called ‘‘polymeric geosynthetic
barrier’’. They are sheet type products. Geomembranes are
produced from different polymers and show different
behaviors against different chemicals. One should be
careful with the choice of material appropriate for the
chemical which the geomembrane will be subjected to. For
example, a metro line had to pass underneath a gas station
for which it was known that the storage tanks had leaked in
the immediate past. PVC-based geomembranes routinely
used in the tunnel lining are not resistant to hydrocarbons,
therefore it became mandatory to use a geomembrane
Page 9 of 21 36
produced from a different polymer. However, the problem
of changing the geomembrane polymer creates a welding
difficulty. This is because every polymer has a different
welding procedure. So a special solution was developed to
solve this problem.
Especially in solid waste landfills, many different
geosynthetic products for different purposes are used.
These are products beside the barrier geosynthetics used as
an impermeable layer. Because of the insufficient space in
this article, the details of the various products will not be
given, but the functions and products will only be men-
tioned briefly. Drainage is one of the most important
123
36 Page 10 of 21
functions in solid waste landfills. In this regard, geonets are
usually used. Geotextile filters are used to prevent the solid
particles within the leachate to clog the drainage system.
Protection geotextiles are used to prevent geomembrane
from a possible puncture by sharp materials which can be
present in the base soil or the drainage gravel or in the
waste itself. Geotextile and geogrid reinforcements are
used to construct both berms and steeper waste slopes.
As far as it is known, the first geomembrane used in civil
engineering practices was by Terzaghi. In the 1950s,
Terzaghi covered the upstream slope of Mission Dam in
British Colombia, Canada, with a geomembrane during its
rehabilitation [42]. Afterwards, this dam became known as
the Terzaghi Dam. Today the method of lining the
upstream face of dams with a geomembrane has become a
common method.
No doubt that using geomembranes in waste storing
practices have become a routine procedure and is generally
made mandatory by the environmental regulations. A
geomembrane-lined large-scale solid waste landfill project
from Turkey is seen in Fig. 16.
Geosynthetic clay liners
Geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) are often used as barriers
today. Here the impermeability is provided by the bentonite
clay placed in between two geotextiles. Hence in the literature,
these products are referred as ‘‘clay geosynthetic barrier’’.
GCLs are used at solid waste landfills, irrigation channels,
foundation insulations, water reservoirs and mine tailing
dams. As mentioned above, GCL is produced by the addition
of a thin bentonite layer (5–15 mm) between two geotextile
layers. The GCL is generally preferred due to its low hydraulic
permeability (k \10-10 m/s), low cost and easy installation
[16]. Also it provides successful solutions in practices which
Fig. 16 Izmit integrated environment project, Domestic and Indus-
trial Solid Waste Landfill
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
require more seams and difficult geometrical complications.
Such an example is the waterproofing liner of a piled foun-
dation. The main advantage here is the fact that the bentonite
swells and closes small gaps on its own.
Today GCLs are nearly completely fabricated by nee-
dle-punching. The fabrication of GCL by the needle-
punching technique also increases the shear strength of the
GCL. Needle-punching is done by penetrating the needles
through the fibers of the top geotextile to the lower geo-
textiles through the bentonite. The most important param-
eters which separate the GCLs from each other are
bentonite’s structure and mineralogy used in them (such as
sodium and calcium bentonite), whether granulated or dust
bentonite is used, the type of carrier geotextile and the
production methods [16].
Geosynthetic clay liner’s hydraulic performance depends
on the hydraulic permeability of the bentonite used. The lab
experiments show that the hydraulic permeability coeffi-
cients of GCLs vary from 2 9 10-12 to 2 9 10-10 m/s [52].
In the case of using GCLs in waste storage facilities, the
chemical components including ions like single valued
(NaCl) or double valued (CaCl2) can decrease the hydraulic
permeability of GCL in long term. Especially, in GCLs
which are in touch with two valued ions (Ca2?, Mg2?), these
are exchanged with the sodium (Na?) ions of the bentonite
and within time the hydraulic permeability coefficient of
GCL may increase. This exchange of ions is observed more
when GCLs are subjected to pressures lower than 20 kPa.
When the GCL is under high pressure a reduction of the
permeability because of contact of ions is not observed [22].
Scalia and Benson [59] examined the behavior of GCLs
under the effect of different liquids in a long period of
5–7 years in their experiments. GCLs were in touch with
tap water, deionized water and 0.01 M CaCl2 solutions and
they showed that their hydraulic permeability was not
affected by two valued cations (Ca2?). It is stated that the
water content of the ground below the GCL and the water
content of the GCL itself have a major effect on the
hydraulic features. The higher the water content of the
natural ground under the GCL is, the faster the cation
exchange between bentonite and water in the subsoil
occurs. Also, when the ground water ingredient is more
than 10% and GCLs’ bentonite’s water content is more
than 50%, it was seen that GCLs hydraulic permeability
values can become as low as 5 9 10-11 within 5–7 years.
According to these results, the degree of saturation of the
natural soil below the GCL has a major role in the
hydraulic performance of the GCL.
Geosynthetic clay liners were subjected to hydraulic
permeability experiences to examine hydraulic behaviors
in zinc and copper waste fields [60]. In order to represent
the water polluted with heavy metals in waste fields, water
rich in zinc and copper was used. To compare the results,
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
processed water, rich in sodium, calcium, potassium and
sulfate was used. Also groundwater rich in calcium, mag-
nesium, sulfate, nitrate, chlorite and manganese was used.
It was shown that GCLs’ hydraulic permeability which
were in touch with underground water were measured as
1.7 9 10-11 m/s and this value was between the expected
value of typical low ionic liquid as deionized water
(3 9 10-11 m/s). However, the hydraulic permeability of
GCLs tested by processed water and waste water were
measured 2–4 times higher than its first values. Also the
underground water and processed water after pre-hydration
could not stop GCLs to lose their hydraulic performances.
Consequently, the hydraulic permeability which touched
higher ionic strength liquids were quite higher compared to
GCLs which were tested with lower ionic strength liquids
such as deionized and underground water.
Barroso et al. [8] examined water flow by opening a
3-mm-sized hole in the middle of the geomembrane layers
which were in contact with GCLs. The amount of water
lost in relation to the cell pressure, hydraulic load and pre-
hydration was investigated. As a result, the amount of
water flow through geocomposite was remarkably
decreased especially in GCL with pre-hydration, when the
internal pressure was increased (from 50 to 200 kPa). In
the GCLs without pre-hydration, increasing the internal
pressure nearly did not change the hydraulic features of
GCL at all for these samples. In addition to this, increasing
the hydraulic load from 0.3 to 1.2 m increased the water
flow through all tested geocomposites remarkably (1–2
times).
Similarly, another study examined the water flow
through a geocomposite [58]. The geocomposite consti-
tuted of 1.5-mm-thick HDPE geomembrane and a GCL
with sodium bentonite. A 10-mm hole was created on the
geomembrane and it was tested in the laboratory. The
effect of a liquid including 0.14 M NaCl for 800 days;
including 0.04 M NaCl for 120 days and deionized water
for 280 days was investigated. The experiments were done
under the water head of 1 m. As a result, the water passing
was directly proportional with the hydraulic load. The
hydraulic permeability, of deionized water tested under the
1-m hydraulic load of GCLs, was measured as 4.6 9 10-11
m/s. The hydraulic permeability, tested with 0.14 M NaCl
liquid of GCL was measured as 4.3 9 10-10 m/s with a
hole under it. Also, the wet radius in GCL, was scaled
between 0.1 and 0.15 m by injecting a paint in flow.
According to these results, it is concluded that the leaked
liquid from the hole in geomembrane after the touch with
GCL, was controlled by the interface transmissivity
between GCL and geomembrane but not by the GCL’s
initial hydraulic permeability.
Geosynthetic clay liners are also used as barriers in
clean water reservoirs in addition to solid waste storing
Page 11 of 21 36
facilities. In these practices, the base ground onto which the
GCLs are laid can vary from clay to coarse gravel, highly
permeable limestone or rock with open discontinuity sur-
faces. When the height of the stored water in such facilities
are considered, the hydraulic head effecting the GCL also
increases and the possibility of piping of the bentonite
between two geotextile compounds may occur. As a result
of this pipping, the hydraulic permeability of GCL can
increase. This interaction, which may reduce the hydraulic
permeability remarkably, is called internal erosion.
Özhan and Guler [51] investigated the parameters which
affect the internal erosion of GCLs in clean water reser-
voirs under high water heads. In order to examine the
effects of these parameters better, instead of natural gravel,
a base plate with uniform circular holes was used. Various
GCLs were laid on a base plate with different diameter
holes and water heads of to 50 m were applied to measure
the hydraulic permeability with a flexible wall perme-
ameter. It is observed that the diameter of the hole has a
major effect on internal erosion and the internal erosion
occurs under lower water pressures when the hole size
increases. It was determined that the main mechanism here
is the expansion of the geotextile into the hole, which
causes the opening size of the geotextile to increase and
thereby loses its ability to prevent the loss of the clay
particles. The extreme deformations of the geotextile fac-
ing the hole of the basal plate are shown in Fig. 17.
At the end of the experiments, it was seen that there was no
internal erosion in GCLs, which were tested on the basal
plate that had holes with a diameter of 5 mm. It is stated that
the engineering features of geotextile compounds that are in
touch with the base plates have an important effect on the
internal erosion. It was also seen that the geotextile, which
had the highest tensile strength among the tested GCLs, had
also the best endurance against internal erosion. The fact that
the bentonite in GCL is sodium or calcium did not affect the
results significantly in terms of the internal erosion.
Chen et al. [18] stated that the performance of GCLs
depend also on the mechanical features other than the
hydraulic features. In this study, which examines the rela-
tionship between the bentonite loss in GCLs and shear
Fig. 17 The extreme deformations caused in GCL facing the holes of
the base plate [51]
123
36 Page 12 of 21
resistance between GCL and geomembrane, they applied
single unidirectional vertical loading and shear stresses to the
interface of the woven geotextile of GCLs and geomem-
branes. According to the outcomes of the experiment, first
swelling the bentonite and then loading it caused more
bentonite loss than GCLs compared to first loading and then
allowing it to swell. Increasing the loading number caused
more loss of bentonite in these experiments. At the end of
loading experiments, 0–21.9 g/m2 loss of bentonite was
measured in GCLs. This value was measured between 10.7
and 81.1 g/m2 after the shear forces were applied in the shear
box. According to the conclusions, the shear between
geomembrane and GCL caused significantly higher ben-
tonite loss and this reduced also the friction angle between
GCL and geomembrane interface by approximately as 8.
This reduction decreased the stability of the GCL
remarkably.
Also, the GCL’s internal shear strength is important for
providing the necessary stability [16]. That is why GCLs
which are not reinforced should not be used on slopes
steeper than 10 horizontal:1 vertical [57]. However, the
GCLs reinforced by needle-punching can preserve their
stability even in vertical slopes. An application of GCLs
vertically for a building isolation can be seen in Fig. 18.
A case from Turkey
A mine waste storing facility was constructed to store the
wastes from Emet New Boric Acid Facility, placed in
Kutahya’s Emet province. The natural ground comprises
Paleozoic, Mesozoic, Cenozoic old units. The formation
Fig. 18 Waterproofing of
basement: specially formulated
polymer-enhanced GCLs were
used to resist against high
alkaline environment due to wet
concrete (courtesy GEOMAS)
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
encountered in this area is called Emet formation and
consist of white-cream colored, thick, close to horizontally
layered clayey limestones and limestones. There are also
some lenticular marl and claystone inside Emet Formation.
The unit is loose and weak, and some karstic formations
can be observed. Upper levels are highly fractured and
lower layers are segregated stronger than upper part. The
presence of highly permeable limestone formations
between clay units in the reservoir area made it mandatory
to line the reservoir. Permeability experiments done using
the waste fluid on GCL materials, showed that there is a
need of a composite liner system consisting of a GCL and
geomembrane. Since there is a ground water in the lime-
stones as is seen in Fig. 19, there was a risk of the liner
system accumulating water on its back and as a conse-
quence uplifting of the liner. For this reason, a drainage
geocomposite was placed between the natural ground and
GCL. This drainage geocomposite was chosen as a geonet
which was covered with filter geotextile on both sides.
A dam was built in order to close the front of the valley.
This dam’s Crete length is 550 m and Thalweg length is
55 m. The dam was designed as a rock fill dam with a
compacted clay liner. Body slopes on downstream face was
2.25/1 and of upstream face 3/1. In this context, nearly
1,000,000 m3 of fill was used.
In total an area of 300,000 m2 has been covered with a
geomembrane–GCL liner. Strict quality control measures
were implemented during the liner installation and some of
the quality control measures are seen in Fig. 20. The terrain
had a natural topography, which made the installation of a
liner impossible. Therefore, a more suitable geometry was
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36 Page 13 of 21 36

Fig. 21 The production of liner continues

Fig. 19 Water seeping from the slope

created by excavations for the site. This geometry was

planned by considering both the requirements of the liner
system and the workability of the construction machinery
(Fig. 21). To limit the tension forces on the geosynthetics,
the maximum allowable height difference was chosen as 10
m. Berms have been created in between slopes. As men-
tioned above, these berms allowed for the hauling trucks to
carry on the excavated materials and the liners to be
brought to the site. In addition, these berms were used to
anchor the geosynthetic liners. The same berms will be
used for carrying out the maintenance work. Therefore, for
the vehicles not to harm the liner system, the berms have
been covered by earth fill. This operation can be seen in Fig. 22 Placing of road cover on the membrane
Fig. 22. A general view of the site can be seen in Fig. 23.
Eleven service roads were constructed in total to provide
the above-mentioned allowable height difference rule. To
adapt the geometry, 300,000 m3 of soil and rock was
excavated. This excavation also helped increase the storage
volume to 4,500,000 m3 and therefore was feasible.

Geosynthetic encapsulated columns

General information

One of the most important features of geosynthetics is

constant innovation and development since their first Fig. 23 A general view of the tailing dam

Fig. 20 a Tensile strength tests;

b testing the impermeability of
seams by air pressure test

123
36 Page 14 of 21
appearance in the 1960s. Geosynthetics are materials
highly compatible with the ground and that is why since the
very first use, every day new application areas are being
developed. One of them, whose design methods has already
entered the design standards, is geosynthetic encapsulated
stone columns which are known as ‘‘Geosynthetic Encased
Column’’ or in short GEC. In this paper, the GECs will be
used as an example to highlight the developments in the
geosynthetic industry.
As it is known, when the traditional stone columns are
installed in loose sand, the column causes a densification in
the natural loose sand and hence constitutes a very effec-
tive improvement against liquefaction. However, when
stone columns are installed in soft clays, because soft clay
can provide a limited lateral pressure, also the vertical load
that can be transferred to the column will be limited.
McKenna et al. [49] reported that the head part of stone
columns in soft clays dispersed and soft clay intrudes
between the stones. Obviously, gaps in the stones which
are filled by soft clays, just like ballast material in railways,
decrease the load carrying capacity and lead to increase in
the vertical deformation [61]. To overcome this problem,
the idea of placing a geosynthetic encasement around the
granular material has been developed. The difference
between geosynthetic encapsulated stone column and
ordinary stone column is a geosynthetic reinforcement
providing confinement around the granular material. In this
way, the granular material that wants to expand sideways is
not only restricted by the cohesive soil, but also by the
geosynthetic reinforcement. As is known, the main failure
modes of stone columns can be listed as barreling, general
shear failure and direct cut. However, the most commonly
encountered critical failure mode is barreling
[7, 37, 38, 72].
The main task of geosynthetic reinforcement placed
around the stone columns was firstly defined by Ghionna
and Jamiolkowski [28] with a unit cell model, and this
theory was developed by [3, 23, 54–56]. The main
concept of this theory is seen in its final form in Fig. 24.
Finally, the design methodology of the GECs was
included in the German Specification of Geosynthetic
Reinforcement EBGEO [4] where all design details are
given.
To see how effective the geosynthetic stiffness is, tests
were conducted using geotextile reinforcements with dif-
ferent stiffness. The behavior of ordinary stone columns
was compared with results of tests conducted with geo-
textiles of different stiffness and the results are shown in
Fig. 25.
The most commonly used method in installing geosyn-
thetic encapsulated stone column is shown in Fig. 26. As
seen in Fig. 27, a geosynthetic encapsulated stone column
shows a very rigid behavior even outside the soil.
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
Earthquake response
Despite the research summarized above covering the static
behavior in detail, there is almost no study, numerically or
experimentally, including any seismic behavior of GECs or
seismic performance of such column supported earth
structures.
Guler et al. [35] focused on the possibility of the use of
GEC as soil improvement in regions of high seismic
activity. Since the stone column has the potential of losing
the integrity under earthquake loading conditions, it is
thought that a geosynthetic encapsulation may prove to be
useful. The presence of a geosynthetic encapsulation can-
not be modeled with a 2D-finite element model. Therefore,
to investigate the effect of earthquake on stone columns
and how GECs improve the behavior, a 3D finite element
model was developed. The software TNO-DIANA has
been used for this purpose. The FE mesh shown in Fig. 28a
shows in brown color the firm clay, in grey color the soft
clay and in green the embankment constructed on the GEC
columns. A total of four columns can be seen in blue color.
The soft clay has an undrained cohesion of 15 kN/m2. The
firm ground is a granular soil with an internal friction angle
of Ø = 32. The stone columns are also represented as a
frictional material with an internal friction angle of
Ø = 30. The geosynthetic encasement is modeled to have
a stiffness of E = 1500 kN/m.
First case is the surcharge load being applied without
any soil improvement. In this case, the settlement under the
surcharge load for earthquake loading conditions has been
determined as 1.56 m. When four stone columns are
installed below the surcharge load the settlement reduces to
1.27 m, indicating a 19% improvement. When the stone
columns are encapsulated with a geotextile, or in other
words the soil improvement is done by GECs, the settle-
ment reduces to 1.04 m, which secures another 18%
improvement compared to standard stone columns. Also
from the maximum tensile stresses obtained during the
earthquake loading, it was determined that the tensile for-
ces close to the top increased significantly, showing that
the reinforcement fulfilled its function of keeping the
stones confined.
Another indication that the geosynthetic encapsulation
prevents the bulging of stone columns is the tension that
develops in the geosynthetic encapsulation. In Fig. 28b it
can be seen that tensile forces which develop during the
earthquake is not a uniform distribution as in the static case
where only vertical loads control the stresses. Rather there
is concentration of tensile stress at the locations which
resist the horizontal displacement the most. The maximum
tensile stress calculated in the geosynthetic encapsulation is
138 kN/m. Another interesting observation is that the
tensile stresses in the encapsulation develop mostly in the
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36 Page 15 of 21 36

Fig. 24 Stress distribution

theory in case of using
geosynthetics encapsulation
[53]

Fig. 25 A comparison of ordinary stone columns and improvement rates obtained by geosynthetic encapsulation

123
36 Page 16 of 21 Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36

Fig. 26 Manufacturing method

of geosynthetic encapsulated
stone column [2]

upper part of GEC and there are no additional stresses at

the lower portions of the GECs.

Geosynthetics: for a sustainable environment

Sustainability is a complex concept. The most often quoted

Fig. 27 GEC in isolation (Courtesy: Huesker)
definition comes from the UN Bruntland commission:
‘‘sustainable development is development that meets the
needs of the present without compromising the ability of
future generations to meet their own needs’’. In the charter
for the UCLA Sustainability Committee, sustainability is
defined as: ‘‘the physical development and institutional
operating practices that meet the needs of present users
without compromising the ability of future generations to
meet their own needs, particularly with regard to use and

Fig. 28 a Finite elements mesh; b distribution of tensile stress in the geosynthetic encapsulation during the earthquake [35]

123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
waste of natural resources. Sustainable practices support
ecological, human, and economic health and vitality. Sus-
tainability presumes that resources are finite, and should be
used conservatively and wisely with a view to long-term
priorities and consequences of the ways in which resources
are used.’’ In simplest terms, sustainability is about our
children and our grandchildren, and the world we will
leave them [70].
Nowadays, the rapid increase of the population of the world
has a significant effect on raising the amount of greenhouse
gases. Hence, beside the technical and economical items in a
design, there is huge demand for a sustainable design which
aims for reduction of energy consumption and emission of
climate-related gases like CO2 and CH4 [69]. The material
chosen for sustainable construction techniques should ideally
be available from a number of sources which the conventional
material may not. Actually, a sustainable design aims to
decrease the cost and pollution caused by a construction
procedure and in the meantime, to increase the efficiency and
lifetime of the projects.
In recent decades, geosynthetics have been considered
as a proper material which can be useful for designing
sustainable construction systems especially in the
geotechnical applications. There are many types of
geosynthetics with each one having its particular proper-
ties. Moreover, thanks to the polymer engineers, a civil
engineer or contractor is able to demand a geosynthetic
which is specially designed and prepared for a project with
certain properties. For instance, we know that in a con-
ventional method the clay core in a dam is a very critical
part to prevent water flow. It is not easy to construct a clay
core with exact desired properties and it is also expensive.
Moreover, with time, the performance of the clay core may
decrease due to continuous water seepage. In a new design
with geosynthetics, the water flow can be stopped by put-
ting a layer of geomembrane on the upstream side of the
dam. By this method, there is no need for clay core any-
more, so it causes a huge saving in the material, energy and
cost.
In order to achieve a sustainable future in the building
industry, Asif et al. [5] suggest adoption of multi-disci-
plinary approach covering a number of features such as:
energy saving, improved use of materials, material waste
minimization, pollution and emissions control, etc. A
review of literature has identified three general objectives
which should shape the framework for implementing sus-
tainable building design and construction [4]. These
objectives are: (1) resource conservation; (2) cost effi-
ciency; (3) design for human adaptation.
Considering the engineering and technical aspects of
design in a geotechnical application, resource conservation
and cost efficiency should be mentioned as two major
factors which are required for sustainable design. These
Page 17 of 21 36
can be evaluated by life cycle assessment and life cost
assessment, respectively. The human adaption factor may
be analyzed by specialists in social sciences and the results
should be considered in the final design.
For reduction of cumulated energy demand (CED) and
CO2 emission, and also for decreasing the costs, a system
should be stabilized to determine the mentioned factors
regarding the various materials and methods including both
conventional methods and developed method by use of
some new materials like geosynthetics. Life cycle assess-
ment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) are two major steps
which make it possible to evaluate the various aspects of a
design system [10, 26, 40, 41].
The carbon footprint is defined as an organization, event
or product that is caused directly or indirectly, total
greenhouse gas emissions as a measure. Carbon footprint,
considers all of these six greenhouse gases which were
identified by the Kyoto protocol: CO2, CH4, N2O, HFCs,
PFCs and SF6. A carbon footprint was measured by tons of
equivalent carbon dioxide (tCO2e). Carbon dioxide equiv-
alent, provides different greenhouse gases to be measured
by comparing a unit CO2.
Carbon footprint of a civil engineering structure may be
studied by determining the potential carbon footprint of
alternative design construction techniques. This approach
requires that the nature of the project, the existing materials
in the field or close to sources, supply logistics and field
layout are examined separately. As can be understood, it is
the most appropriate solution to avoid generalizations in
almost every subject and make assessments and analysis
for every issues on that project.
Example of a barrier
Athanassopoulos and Vamos [6] compared the compacted
natural clay liners versus GCL lining for per hectare. This
study envisaged two alternative waterproofing liners con-
sisting of the following layers:
• Option 1 Prepared subgrade; 0.6-m-thick compacted
clay liner of hydraulic conductivity of 1 9 10-7 cm/s;
1.5-mm HDPE geomembrane; sandy drainage.
• Option 2 Prepared subgrade; GCL; 1.5-mm HDPE
geomembrane; sandy drainage.
Option 2, is a commonly used alternative to Option 1
and these systems will be compared.
Compacted clay liner
Daniel and Koerner [21] indicate that in some cases clay in
the borrow pit may be inadequate and the addition of
bentonite may be required. In the analysis conducted by
Athanassopoulos and Vamos [6], a ‘‘best case’’ scenario
123
36 Page 18 of 21
was used and it was assumed that clay taken from the
borrow pit would meet the specifications without the need
for any changes. Besides, thickness of 0.6 mm is often
inadequate, it is necessary to create a thicker layer of
impermeable clay. Here also an assumption is made in
favor of the classic alternative.
It is considered that clay in the borrow pit is dug with
standard construction machines and hauled with trucks.
The distance between the borrow pit and the liner con-
struction site certainly vary considerably from project to
project and the transportation of clay between borrow pit
and the work area is a very important component of the
total carbon emissions. Daniel and Koerner [21], suggest
that the compaction of the subbase and leveling will be
made using a bulldozer and a grader for the subgrade
preparation. The clay is spread in as 0.15–0.2 m layers, and
compacted by sheep-foot rollers. In addition, water is
added to provide an appropriate water content. The surface
of the last layer is compressed using a flat cylindrical drum
to provide a suitable base for geomembrane coating. [6].
Geosynthetic clay liner
Geosynthetic clay liners are used in many projects as a
replacement for compacted clay liners. Bonaparte et al.
[15] showed that GCLs have hydraulic performance that is
equivalent to 0.6 m of compacted clay or superior. Trauger
[63] defines a detailed description of bentonite exploration
and extraction process. As with the compacted clay liner
option, the emissions related to preliminary research of
bentonite have not been included into the analysis. Ben-
tonite obtained from clay quarry is transported to the pro-
cessing plant which is located in close proximity. Material
is ventilated for drying and the dried and powdered clay is
transferred to the GCL manufacturing line. Later, bentonite
placed between two geotextiles is needle-punched. The so-
prepared GCL rolls are transported to the construction site
and the transport distance in this study was also evaluated
separately for three different distances. Before laying of
GCL, subbase soil is prepared to comply with the project
specifications. Existing ground surface is leveled by using a
bulldozer and a grader. A further step is required in the
case of a GCL liner, namely a flat cylinder drum must level
the ground. The installed GCL is covered with 1.5-mm-
thick HDPE geomembrane and the geomembrane is cov-
ered with sand drainage layer of 0.3 m [6].
Summary of carbon footprint analysis results
Benefiting from the assumptions described above, the
carbon footprint analysis was carried out for compacted
clay liner and GCL options. Each of the process of various
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
Fig. 29 The effect of transport distance of clay to CO2 emission [6]
transportation and construction components (USEPA
[62–68]) and CO2 emission factors given by the University
of Bath are used. For both options, fuel consumption rates
of various construction equipments used are quoted from
Caterpillar [17]. The greenhouse gas emissions of bentonite
processing were provided by DAI Environmental [20].
Figure 29 shows the result of the sensitivity analysis.
The figure shows the linear relationship between the dis-
tance between borrow pit and construction site and the total
carbon footprint of compacted clay liner with associated
curves related to the carbon footprints based on the dis-
tance to the work site from GCL facility with the
assumption of 100, 1600 and 3000 km. Examining the
figure, to produce less carbon emissions than the GCL
option the compacted clay liners (with the assumption that
the GCL plant is 1600 km away from the work area), the
clay borrow pit will need to be within approximately 9 km.
If the GCL plant is even at a distance of 3000 km away
from construction site (an extreme case), clay borrow pit
needs to be approximately closer than 14 km for the CCL
to produce a lower carbon footprint. So it can be stated that
in the vast majority of the cases, the use of GCL causes less
CO2 footprint.
Geosynthetic reinforced soil-retaining structure
The above example can be expanded to many different
areas: for example using a geotextile reinforcement below
an embankment to prevent stability problems, to replacing
concrete retaining walls with geosynthetic reinforced soil-
retaining walls etc.
Chulski [19] investigated the sustainability of four dif-
ferent design methods of a retaining wall. Life cycle
assessment (LCA) and life cycle cost (LCC) analysis were
used to evaluate the sustainability of the various designs. A
hypothetical case study was used to determine the best all-
around design in terms of sustainability, cost, and function
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
using a consistent methodology including LCA in con-
junction with LCC, using specific geographical boundaries
to address geographic specificity, and maintaining cradle-
to-grave boundary conditions. A retaining wall case study
is an excellent lens for examining traditional materials and
geosynthetics.
The study conducted by Erten and Guler [26] compared
the CO2 emissions of reinforced-concrete versus geosyn-
thetic reinforced soil-retaining structures. In this study, the
backfill material consists of sand placed and compacted in
0.2-m lifts over a drainage system. Any additional mate-
rials (drain board, weep holes, waterproofing, etc.) will not
be considered for this study, because it is expected that the
concrete required for the gravity retaining wall will drive
the LCA in this case, likely making it the least sustainable
case. The gravity retaining wall will serve as a basis for
comparison among the studies. For the MSE wall, granular
backfill material is compacted in lifts over unidirectional
geogrid reinforcement which anchors the block wall in
place via the weight of the soil above it and the tension
within the geogrid anchoring the wall in place. The MSE
wall is vertical and concrete blocks will be used as facing
elements.
A comparison was made by analyzing 3-, 4- and 5-m-
high reinforced-concrete and geosynthetic reinforced walls.
The carbon footprint values of material production are
estimated as follows: woven geotextile production, 2.36
tCO2-e/t; concrete production, 0.18 tCO2-e/t; and steel
rebar production, 2.68 tCO2-e/t. Emission results are
calculated according to amount of materials used in the
design multiplied by assumed carbon footprint per unit.
Emissions of material production are given as tons of CO2
equivalent.
Transportation distances are taken according to material
availability in Turkey. The production of concrete blocks
and geotextile are mainly located in the Marmara region of
Turkey. The largest distance occurs between Marmara and
south-east regions. The production of concrete is spread in
all regions. Rebar production exists in Marmara, Mediter-
ranean and Black Sea regions. The results will be com-
pared in order to show the impact of distances. The
transportation distance of the main materials used in the
construction are as follows: for woven geotextile,
1000–100 km; precast concrete blocks, 1000–100 km;
concrete, 200–20 km; and steel rebar, 500–50 km. The
emission per ton per km was taken as 0.204 kg CO2-e/t.
Calculations clearly show that the transportation dis-
tances do not affect the comparison of the wall types. Even
if we compare the emissions of geogrid wall with maxi-
mum distance, they are still much lower compared to the
emissions of reinforced-concrete wall with minimum
transportation distances. Comparison of a 5-m-high
Page 19 of 21 36
Fig. 30 CO2 emissions of 5-m-high geogrid (blue) and reinforced-
concrete (orange) wall with average transportation distance [26]
geogrid (blue) and reinforced-concrete (orange) wall with
average transportation distances is given in Fig. 30.
Guler et al. [31, 33] have further shown that soil mate-
rials obtained from excavations can be used as a backfill
material for geosynthetic reinforced retaining walls. As is
known, nowadays it is very hard to get a license for a new
stone quarry as another means for protecting the environ-
ment, and the carbon credits have become salable for the
purpose of aiming to prevent greenhouse gases [39].
Therefore, the geosynthetic reinforced walls constitute a
major advantage over the metallic reinforced soil walls,
where a free draining material is inevitable to prevent the
corrosion of the metal reinforcement.
Conclusion
Today, it can easily be said that geosynthetics are accepted
by the industry as common civil engineering materials like
soil, concrete, steel and timber. Obviously, every material
has its own characteristics. But because geosynthetics are
designed and manufactured for a special purpose of
application, they can produce more effective engineering
solutions compared to traditional building materials.
Information was shared in this article about geosyn-
thetics in limited space. The purpose is to demonstrate how
geosynthetics have earned the trust of the civil engineering
community and to reflect the very diverse and extensive
scientific research on these issues. Besides it was tried to
highlight that geosynthetics have new application fields
every day and behind every new development there must
be theoretical and experimental research.
The doubts which existed decades ago related to using
geosynthetics have been lifted through detailed scientific
research and countless successful applications. But it is a
fact that unfortunately sometimes the design and quality
control issues in installation are not fully followed due to
the comfort gained from the successful and easy applica-
123
36 Page 20 of 21
tions of geosynthetics. As with all other building materials,
the geosynthetics’ properties must also be controlled with
laboratory tests. The properties and features which are
foreseen in the design must be validated according to the
quality control requirements. Just like in superstructures,
the quality of concrete mix and also the on-site processing
of the concrete is important for a high quality, geosyn-
thetics can only provide the foreseen result if high-quality
materials are used and when correct installation procedures
are followed.
As a result, a geosynthetic produced under a high quality
control procedure and installed correctly is an excellent
material to solve the numerous problems of civil
engineering.
References
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 159
2. Alexiew D, Brokemper D, Lothspeich S (2005) Geotextile
encased columns (GEC): load capacity, geotextile selection and
pre-design graphs. In: Proc. Geofrontiers 2005, Austin
3. Alexiew D, Raithel M, Kuster V, Detert O (2012) 15 years of
experience with geotextile encased granular columns as founda-
tion system. In: Proc. Int. Symp. on Ground Impr. IS-GI,
ISSMGE TC 211, Brussels
4. Anon (2011) ‘‘EBGEO: recommendations for design and analysis
of earth structures using geosynthetic reinforcements’’ German
Geotechnical Society (DGGT). Ernst & Sohn, Essen-Berlin
5. Asif M, Muneer T, Kelly R (2007) Life cycle assessment: a case
study of a dwelling home in Scotland. Build Environ 42:1391–1394
6. Athanassopoulos C, Vamos RJ (2011) Carbon footprint com-
parison of GCLs and compacted clay liners. In: The 24th annual
GRI conference, Dallas, March 16, 2011, pp 142–157
7. Barksdale RD, Bachus RC (1983) Design and construction of stone
columns. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-RD-83-026
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 24:139–155
9. Basbug E (2012) Dynamic behavior of geogrid reinforced seg-
mental block walls under earthquake loads. Ph.D. Thesis, Boga-
zici University
10. Belton, J et al (2008) Using geosynthetics to meet the challenge
of improving material resource efficiency. In: Proc. EuroGeo4,
Scotland, Paper #128
11. Bathurst RJ, Hatami K (1998) Seismic response analysis of a
geosynthetic-reinforced soil wall. Geosynth Int 5(1–2):127–166
12. Bathurst RJ, Hatami K, Alfaro MC (2002) Geosynthetic-rein-
forced soil walls and slopes–seismic aspects. In: Shukla SK (ed)
Geosynthetics and their applications. Thomas Telford,
pp 327–392
13. Berg RR, Christopher BR, Samtani NC (2009) Design of
mechanically stabilized earth walls and reinforced soil slopes.
FHWA NHI-09-083, p 684
14. Bogazici University. Kandilli Observatory and Earthquake
Research Institute. http://www.koeri.boun.edu.tr/depmuh_index_
eng.aspx
123
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
15. Bonaparte R, Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2002) Assessment and
recommendations for optimal perf. of waste containment systems.
EPA/600/R- 02/099
16. Bouazza A (2002) Geosynthetic clay liners. Geotext Geomembr
20:3–17
17. Caterpillar Performance Handbook (2010) Edition 40
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 28:63–71
19. Chulski KD (2015) A thesis entitled: life cycle assessment and
costing of geosynthetics versus earthen materials. University of
Toledo
20. DAI Environmental, Inc. (2010) AMCOL Greenhouse Gas
Emissions, Int. Report
21. Daniel DE, Koerner RM (2007) Waste containment facilities:
guidance for construction quality assurance and quality control of
liner and cover systems
22. Daniel DE (2000) Hydraulic durability of geosynthetic clay lin-
ers. In: Proceedings of the 14th GRI conference (hot topics in
geosynthetics), Las Vegas, pp 118–135
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 1685–1688
24. El-Emam M, Bathurst RJ (2004) Experimental design, instru-
mentation and interpretation of reinforced soil wall response
using a shaking table. Int J Phys Model Geotech 4(4):13–32
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 15
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 1414–1428
27. FHWA (2009) Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabi-
lized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes, Publication No.
FHWA-NHI-10-024 Federal Highway Administration, FHWA
GEC 011
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 507
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 Cyprus
30. Guler E, Togrol E, Merdin E (1985) ‘‘Zemin Mekaniği Uygula-
malarında Geotekstillerin Kullanılması’’, İnşaat Mühendisleri
Odası, Türkiye İnşaat Mühendisliği 8. Teknik Kongresi, Ankara,
pp 173–187
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):330–345
32. Guler E, Enünlü AK (2009) Investigation of dynamic behavior of
geosynthetic reinforced soil retaining structures under earthquake
loads. Bull Earthq Eng 7:737–777
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):793–811
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)
35. Guler E, Alexiew D, Abbaspour A, Koç M (2014) Seismic per-
formance of geosynthetic encased stone columns. In: TRB 93rd
annual meeting, Paper No. 14-1446, p 15
Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. (2017)2:36
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
42:1066–1085
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):357–369
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 201–208
39. Koerner R (2009) Geosynthetics: a key toward sustainability,
geosynthetics
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 378–385
41. Robinson PNJ, Quirk CM (2008) The UK aggregate levy and its
implications to geosynthetics. In: Proc. EuroGeo4, Scotland,
Paper #80
42. Koerner RM (2000) Emerging and future developments of
selected geosynthetic applications. J Geotechn Geoenviron Eng
126(4):293–306
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, Yokohama
44. Lee KZZ, Chang NY, Ko HY (2010) Numerical simulation of
geosynthetic-reinforced soil walls under seismic shaking. Geotext
Geomembr 28:317–334
45. Ling HI, Liu H, Kaliakin VN, Leshchinsky D (2004) Analyzing
dynamic behavior of geosynthetic-reinforced soil retaining walls.
J Eng Mech 130(8):911–920
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):1056–1065
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):465–476
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):653–661
49. McKenna JM, Eyre WA, Wolstenholme DR (1975) Performance
of an embankment supported by stone columns in soft ground.
Geotechnique 25(1):51–59
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 259–264
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):418–428
52. Petrov RJ, Rowe RK, Quigley RM (1997) Selected factors
influencing GCL hydraulic conductivity. ASCE J Geotech
Geoenviron Eng 123(8):683–695
53. Raithel M (1999) ,,Zum Trag- und Verformungsverhalten von
geokunststoffummantelten Sandsaulen‘‘Schriftenreihe Geotech-
nik, Heft 6. Universitat Gesamthochschule Kassel, Kassel
Page 21 of 21 36
54. Raithel M, Kempfert HG (1999) ,,Bemessung von Geokunst-
stoffummantelten Sandsaulen‘‘ Die Bautechnik (76), Heft 12,
Germany
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,
Melbourne
56. Raithel M, Kempfert HG, Kirchner (2005) ,,Berechnungsver-
fahren und Bemessung von ummantelten Saulen—Entwicklung
und aktueller Stand‘‘ 9. Informations- und Vortragstagung der
Fachsektion ‘‘Kunststoffe in der Geotechnik’’ KGEO
57. Richardson GN (1997) GCL internal shear strength requirements.
Geosynth Fabr Rep 15(2):20–25
58. Rowe RK, Abdelatty K (2013) Leakage and contaminant trans-
port through a single hole in the geomembrane component of a
composite liner. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 139:357–366
59. Scalia J, Benson CH (2011) Hydraulic conductivity of geosyn-
thetic clay liners exhumed from landfill final covers with com-
posite barriers. ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 137:1–13
60. Shackelford CD, Sevick GW, Eykholt GR (2010) Hydraulic
conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners to tailings impoundment
solutions. Geotext Geomembr 28:149–162
61. Tandel YK, Solanki CH, Desai AK (2012) Reinforced granular
column for deep soil stabilization: a review. Int J Civil Struct Eng
2(3)
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 June
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 manufactur-
ing, GRI, Drexel University, Philadelphia, pp 185–198
64. USEPA (2005) emission facts: average carbon dioxide emissions
resulting from gasoline and diesel fuel. Office of Transportation
and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-05-001
65. USEPA (2005) Emission facts: metrics for expressing greenhouse
gas emissions: carbon equivalents and carbon dioxide equiva-
lents. Office of Transportation and Air Quality, EPA-420-F-05-
002
66. USEPA (2008) eGRID-the emissions and generation resource
integrated database for 2007. USEPA Agency Office of Atmo-
spheric Programs
67. USEPA (2008) Climate leaders guidance for direct emissions
from mobile combustion sources. Office of Air and Radiation
(6202J), EPA430-K-03-005
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-08-006
69. USEPA (2010) Mandatory reporting of greenhouse gas emis-
sions. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 98
70. [web]. http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/about-us/what-is-sustainability/
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 1:3–20
72. Yoo C (2010) Performance of geosynthetic-encased stone col-
umns in embankment construction: numerical investigation.
ASCE J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 136(8):1148–1160
123