GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1044

External Stability of Geotubes Subjected to Wave Loading

M. Khalilzad1 and M. A. Gabr2,

1
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695; email: mkhalil@ncsu.com

2
Professor, Dept. of Civil, Construction, and Environmental Engineering, North
Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695; email: gabr@ncsu.com

ABSTRACT

Geotubes used as shoreline protective structures are formed using geotextile

material that is hydraulically filled with soil to form desired dimensions. Historically,
these structures are mainly used in the US for the dewatering of wet soils, and there is
a focus in the literature on the internal stability aspects where filling pressure is
specified such that rupture does not occur. After the 2008 Hurricane Ike hit on
Galveston, failure of geotubes was observed in differential lateral displacement and
rotation modes as well as due to the scour of the underlying foundation soil. External
stability of geotubes is studied in this paper considering the effects of wave loading
with the rising water level due to the storm surge. Results indicated that limit
equilibrium analysis yielded factors of safety less than unity, yet, in some cases
functionality is preserved as the lateral deformation can be tolerated and the height of
the structure is maintained. Based on the parameters assumed in this paper
performance aspects can be preserved during storm loading if the soil used to form
the geotube is engineered to have soil elasticity modulus more than 1 MPa, and soil
unit weight higher than 18 kN/m3. At these values, the geotube exhibited the
attributes of a rigid body response, with a minimal distortion of shape under the
applied loading.

INTRODUCTION

The use of long geotextile-made containers that are hydraulically filled with
soil, also referred as geotubes, can serve an alternative for the traditional coastal
protection structures such as sea walls. In this case a tube is formed using geotextile
materials and is hydraulically filled with a mixture of sand and water. Such an option
is more attractive than hardened structures as they can be covered with sand and
made to look analogous to natural dunes. However, while geotubes are used as costal
protective structures, their design approach and construction materials are
implemented in practice in the same fashion as when they are used for the dewatering
of sludge materials. Issues related to internal stability and filling pressure are
addressed in literature, but analysis of external stability is an issue needing more
investigation.

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1045

Internal stability of geotubes including adequate seaming strength and the

shapes to which they are formed under specified pumping pressure has been
investigated in the past. For example, Liu (1981) presented a general solution for
predicting the shape of a geotube as a function of the internal filling pressure.
Kazimierowicz (1994) developed a formulation for a geotube filled with sand or
mortar to provide the tensile force in the shell and the length of the contact between
the geotube and its foundation. Leshchinsky et al. (1996) and Plaut and Suherman
(1998) presented formulations for the geometry of geotubes and the circumferential
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

stresses in the geotextile. The latter also extended the formulation to include the two
cases of geotubes on deformable foundation and with water on one side. Plaut and
Klusman (1999) analyzed stacked geotubes on deformable foundation in two
configurations: one geotube on top of the other, and one geotube set on two geotubes
underneath it. In all of these approaches, it has been assumed that the maximum
tensile stress in geotextile occurs under hydraulic pumping pressure while geotubes
are being filled. Contre (2002) presented a finite element model for the consolidation
of geotubes and verified the former statement about maximum tensile stress occurring
during the filling process. By conducting a series of hydraulic experiments, Yaliciner
et al. (2006) studied the performance of perforated vertical walls constructed with
geotextile tubes. The focus of the work was not on the external stability but on
evaluating the reflection and transmission coefficient as a function of the wave
characteristics. The authors suggested that this type of structures can be used as
breakwaters where the design wave characteristics are in the acceptable lower limits.
Observations from geotube failures at Galveston, Texas, after hurricane Ike
(2008) however showed that design aspects related to the external stability have been
lacking. As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the geotube is exposed after the waves have
washed away the cover sand “dune”. It seems that failure under the wave impact
occurred in different modes. Lateral translation of geotubes under a combined effect
of sliding and rotating was observed in this case. Sinking the geotubes due to a low
bearing capacity and scour of the foundation soil was also observed, as shown in
Figure 1.

Figure 1. Geotubes at Galveston, TX after Hurricane Ike

[Photo by Dr. M. Overton, North Carolina State University]

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1046

Geotube:
Displacement
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geotube:
Scour & Bearing Capacity

Geotube: Tearing of Outer Layer

Figure 2. Different Modes of Failure after Hurricane Ike (Galveston, TX)

[Google Earth View]

Work in this paper aims at investigating the deformation behavior of geotubes

with an emphasis on the external stability under wave loading. First, a geotube with
the same geometry as in Galveston case is studied using the limit equilibrium
approach. The factors of safety against sliding and rotation are estimated under wave
loading. Then, deformation analysis is performed using a finite element model to
study the effect of material properties on the horizontal movement and tensile stresses
in geotextile while the geotube is under a horizontal impulse loading representative of
wave loading. A discussion on the appropriateness of limit equilibrium approach
versus deformation analysis is presented.

LIMIT EQUILIBRIUM ANALYSIS

Limit equilibrium analysis is performed to assess the importance of external

stability for a geotube system under wave loading. Previously, Shin and Oh (2007)
studied the stability of a geotube under different wave heights assuming rigid body
characteristics. They have used Hiroi’s empirical equation (Hiroi, 1920) to estimate
the hydrodynamic pulsating load due to wave action, and assumed an equivalent
rectangular shape of loading with a zero initial water level.
In the analysis of the Galveston geotube case, a wave equivalent force is
obtained from Liu (1981) and is expressed by:

F = β γ w H b2

where F is the equivalent wave load, γw is the unit weight of water and β is an
empirical coefficient depending on the ratio of ds/H and ds /Hb, where H, Hb and ds
are geotube height, wave height, and initial water height, respectively. The advantage
of using Liu (1981) approach is the β factor is defined specifically for a structure with

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1047

an oval cross section shape, which is similar to that commonly formed for a geoteube.
Referring to Liu (1981), the maximum impact force from the breaking waves happens
when the initial water level is approximately at the vertical portion of the geotube
(convex point). During a hurricane, water can be impounded behind the geotube
because of the wave run-up exceeding the height of the geotube, or due to a plunging
wave overtopping it. This trapped water, being a different height from water in front
of the structure contributes to the uplift pressure on the geotube, which is also
included for a robust analysis.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Analysis Parameters
In the limit equilibrium analysis, the geotube is assumed to behave as a rigid
body for the purpose of external stability, and initially oval in shape. This approach
was presented by Shin and Oh (2007). For the subject geotube, a value of 2 was
assumed for the ratio of major and minor axes of the ellipse (WRP, 1998). The
circumference of this ellipse in Galveston case was 9 m based on the Miratech
documents (2003). For geotubes located at Bolivar Peninsula, the elevation of the
base was at +1.55 m MSL (Mean Sea Level) and the minimum geotube height was
1.5 m (Heilman, 2003). The sea level varied between +0.3 to +3.5 m MSL based on
the measurements obtained from gauges operated by National Ocean Service (NOS)
of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as reported by
Kraus and Lin (2009). Factors of safety are calculated for the geotube under two
conditions; i) Case 1: the wave height is assumed 1.3 m (from the bottom of geotube)
corresponding to a β of 3.5. This represents approximately 65% of the maximum
measured surge, ii) Case 2: a smaller wave height of 1.0 m (approximately 50% of
the maximum measured surge) is assumed with a β of 2.5. The wave force decreases
from 62 kN/m to 25 kN/m when the wave height is decreased from 1.3 to 1.0 m, as
both β and Hb decrease. In both cases, to get the maximum wave pressure for such
surge level, the initial water level is assumed to be at the convex point of the geotube.

Results: Limit Equilibrium.

The results of the limit equilibrium analysis are shown in Figure 3 where the
factors of safety against sliding and overturning are obtained for different soil unit
weights. Since the soil unit weight may vary depending on the filling approach and
placement, calculations are repeated for unit weights range of 17 to 21 kN/m3 which
are representative values for filling soil (Leshchinsky et al., 1996, Oh & Shin, 2006
and Shin & Oh, 2007). For Case 1 wave loading magnitude, the factors of safety
against sliding and overturning are less than unity for all the unit weights indicating
that the geotube is unstable in both failure modes (sliding and rotation). On the other
hand, for Case 2, the factors of safety against overturning are higher than unity and
the geotube is stable against rotating. However, in the sliding failure mode, it is stable
only when the soil unit weight exceeds 18 kN/m3.
There are of course several questions surrounding the assumption of a rigid
body and the meaning or validity of such analysis. One main issue that is not however
clear from the results of the limit equilibrium is the magnitude of deformation
associated with the cases where the factor of safety is less than 1.0. It is possible that
the geotube structure remains functional as it is able to tolerate a certain amount of

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1048

deformation without compromising its integrity. This issue is addressed next through
the performance of deformation analysis.

2.0 2.0

F.S. (Overturning)
1.5 1.5
F.S. (Sliding)

1.0 1.0
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.5 0.5
Case 1 Case 1
Case 2 Case 2
0.0 0.0
16 18 20 22 16 18 20 22
Soil Unit Weight (kN/m3) Soil Unit Weight (kN/m3)

Figure 3. Factor of Safety against Sliding and Overturning

NUMERICAL MODELING

The numerical analysis of a geotube system involves certain complexities.

These include unusual shape of the cross section for defining initial conditions,
analysis of large deformations, contact between the geotextile and the soil at the
interface, and moving boundary conditions as sliding occurs. Therefore, several
simplifications are introduced in order to be able to study the effect of parameters
impacting the behavior of a geotube under wave loading. These include the
following: i) plane strain elements are used in the model implying that the geotube
section is long enough; ii) geotextile elements are assumed to have elastic behavior
while Mohr-Coloumb plasticity is assumed for the soil inside the geotube; iii)
hydraulic properties of the soil and geotextile are not considered in this analysis; iv)
friction between the geotextile and foundation is modeled at the interface while the
geotextile and inner soil elements are assumed to be bound together; v) foundation
layer is assumed to be non-yielding to reduce complication of the analysis with
regard to bearing capacity; and vi) wave loading is applied as an equivalent
horizontal pressure pulse.

Model Overview
The numerical model is developed using the computer program ABAQUS
6.9-EF. CPE3 elements (three-node linear plane strain triangle elements) are used for
all three types of materials including geotextile, soil inside the geotube, and the
foundation soil. The Mesh and model configuration are shown in Figure 4 and
material properties are presented in Table 1 (the mesh is truncated at the bottom of
the figure for clarity of presentation). The mesh is created using approximately 6200
elements and 5200 nodes. Boundary conditions include the constrained x and y
displacements at the bottom of the foundation layer and constrained x displacements
at the two sides of foundation layer. At the interface of geotextile and foundation
layer, a contact was defined with a friction coefficient of 0.32 assigned to the

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1049

tangential interaction based on the recommendation of WRP Technical Note (1998).

The interface of between the geotextile and inner soil is a constraint of type “tied”.
Loading conditions are the weight of the material in the form of gravity loads, a
hydrostatic pressure applied over the outer surface of the geotextile where it is in
contact with the initial water level. A horizontal impulse pressure equivalent to the
wave impact is applied on the seaside surface of geotextile up to the elevation
corresponding to the wave height. This loading is in the form of an impulse with 1
second duration to represent one cycle impact under storm surge.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Geotextile Mesh
4m

1m

Initial Water level

0.8 m

Figure 4. Finite Element Meshing and Model dimensions

Table 1. Reference Material Properties

Material Density (Kg/m3) E (MPa) υ Φ(°)
Confined Soil 2000 (saturated) 0.5 0.3 26
Geotextile 400 5×103 0.4 N/A
Foundation N/A 1×103 0.3 N/A

The analyses are performed in two steps. First, the geotube system with initial
oval shape is placed under the gravity loading, thereby developing the initial stresses
in the soil and geotextile. At this step, the geotube develops its shape due to the
weight of contained soil. At the second step, a horizontal loading equivalent to the
wave impact is applied to the model and the geotube deformation behavior is
evaluated.
The deformed shapes after “step 2” are shown in Figure 5 assuming soil
modulus varies from 0.1 to 2 MPa. The material properties including the density and
elasticity modulus of the confined soil as well as the elasticity modulus of the
geotextile influence the shape of the geotube at equilibrium. Results in Figure 5
show that below a specific limit for soil modulus (1 MPa in this analysis), translation
occurs with distortion of the cross section shape. In addition, the geoteube-foundation
contact interface length starts to increase which while may provide a higher resistance

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1050

to sliding, it lead to a reduction in the height. In addition, for the case of E greater
than or equal to 1 MPa, deformation seems to occur mostly in a rigid body fashion
with a minimal distortion of the cross section shape.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

Figure 5. Geotube Deformed Shape under Horizontal Impact for Different Soil
Elasticity Modulus [(a) E=0.1 MPa , (b) E=0.5 MPa, (c) E=1 MPa, (d) E=2 MPa]

PARAMETRIC STUDY

Effect of Soil Unit Weight

Correlating the results from the limit equilibrium to the deformation analyses
reveal several interesting findings. When the geotube is stable under the wave impact
(i.e. the limit equilibrium factor of safety is higher than unity), a relatively small
displacement (less than 0.04m) is determined, as shown in Figure 6(a). This small
displacement can be mainly attributed to the cross section distortion of the geotube
under the external loading condition. When the geotube is unstable (i.e. the limit
equilibrium factor of safety is less than unity), the soil unit weight has a large effect
on the horizontal displacement under the wave impact. As shown in Figure 6(a), it is
observed that the factor of safety against sliding is equal to or larger than unity for
Case 2 when the unit weight is greater than 18 kN/m3. Correspondingly, the
horizontal deformation for this case is very small (0.06 m) for soil unit weights
greater than 18 kN/m3. On the other hand, as the soil unit weight decreases from 21 to
17 kN/m3, the amount of geotube displacement increases from 0.39 to 0.75 m.
At the same time, the effect of soil unit weight on the mobilized tension in the
geotextile is shown in Figure 6(b). A higher value of soil unit weight directly
increases the in-plane tensile stresses in the geotextile, because the pressure applied
to the surface of the geotextile increases. In this case, even though a lateral
deformation of 0.39 m may be tolerated as the geotube retains its shape, the tension in

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1051

the geotxtile most likely exceeds allowable tensile strength (even with the avoidance
of transversal seam orientation.)
0.8 650

Geotextile Tension [kN/m]

Horizontal Disp. [m]

600
0.6

550
0.4
500
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Case 1
0.2 Case 1
Case 2 450
Case 2
0.0 400
16 18 20 22 16 18 20 22
Soil Unit Weight [kN/m3] Soil Unit Weight [kN/m3]

Figure 6. Effect of Soil Unit Weight on Geotube: (a) Interface Horizontal

Displacement, and (b) Mobilized Tension in Geotextile

Effect of Elasticity Modulus

As seen in Figure 7(a), soil modulus of elasticity has a slight impact on the
horizontal displacement of the geotube, but for elasticity modulus less than 0.5 MPa
the geotube is more distorted because of the self-weight. In this case, the interface
contact length between the geotube and foundation increases (Figure 5). This
provides more resistance against lateral sliding of the geotube and therefore,
horizontal deformation drops as a lower value of soil elasticity modulus (0.1 MPa) is
assumed.
0.5 1000
Geotextile Tension (kN/m)

Case 1
Horizontal Disp. [m]

0.4 800
Case 2
0.3 600
Case 1
0.2 400
Case 2
0.1 200

0.0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
E (Soil) [MPa] E(Soil) (MPa)
Figure 7. Effect of Soil Elasticity Modulus on Geotube: (a) Interface Horizontal
Displacement, and (b) Mobilized Tension in Geotextile

Figure 7(b) shows the effect of soil elasticity modulus on the tension
developed in the geotextile. It can be observed in that in both cases, as the soil
becomes stiffer, less tension is mobilized in the geotextile as a less of distorted shape
is developed. However, the soil elasticity modulus with a value greater than 1 MPa
has negligible effect on the tension in geotextile. At this point, the soil is stiff to an
extent that can carry the load without large deformations. This limit can be called the
“rigidity limit” since it seems to define a value after which the geotube seems to
exhibit attributes of a rigid body movement.

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1052

Effect of Soil Friction Angle

Assuming geotubes are filled with a granular soil, friction between the
particles is the main source of strength for the filling soil. When the wave hits the
geotube, a part of impact energy dissipates in the form of deformation of the filling
material, and the remainder of the energy causes the geotube to move. As the friction
angle of the filling soil increases, more of the energy of a wave impact is transformed
into the movement of the geotube than being dissipated due to deformation. This can
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be observed in Figure 8(a). As soil friction angle changes from 18 to 22 degrees, the
horizontal displacement increases from 0.40 to 0.48 m.
For Case 1 (the geotube is unstable according to the limit equilibrium
analysis), as the soil friction angle increases, the maximum tension in the geotextile
decreases (Figure 8b). Changing the friction angle from 18 to 22 degrees results in a
reduction in geotextile tension from 750 to 680 kN/m. This seems to be because of
the lower plastic shear strain of the soil at the higher shear strength. For example, in
the previous case when the soil friction angle increases from 18 to 22 degrees, the
maximum plastic shear strain decreases from 0.32 to 0.27. If the contained soil
becomes plastic, it will undergo more strains. Hence, the strain and correspondingly
the stress will be higher in the geotextile. In Case 2, the geotube is stable and
deformations are small, (0.04 m) thus, the tension in the geotextile in approximately
the same for different friction angles.

0.5 800
Geotextile Tension (kN/m)
Horizontal Disp. [m]

750
0.4 Case 1
Case 1 700
0.3 (b) Case 2
(a) Case 2 650
0.2 600

0.1 550

0.0 500
16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32

Soil Friction Angle (Φ) [°] Soil Friction Angle (Φ) [°]

Figure 8. Effect of Soil Friction Angle on Geotube: (a) Interface Horizontal

Displacement, and (b) Mobilized Tension in Geotextile

CONCLUSSION

The knowledge about the external stability of geotubes under the wave
loading is limited in the literature. Uncertainties are involved in the design of this
type of protective structure as several aspects are carried over from the practices
related to the use of these structures for dewatering high water content materials. This
study is focused on assessing the importance of external stability under the wave
loading and aspects related to its determination. Based on the results obtained from
the analytical and numerical models, the following conclusions are advanced:

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1053

i) Limit equilibrium analysis for the geotube representative of the those

installed at Galveston shows that factors of safety against sliding and
overturning are less than unity when the initial sea water level is at 0.8
m and wave height is 1.3 m. This is perhaps is not surprising since
failure has been observed during Hurricane Ike in 2008.
ii) Parametric studies show that for the soil elasticity modulus less than 1
MPa (in this study), the contact length between the geotube and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

foundation increases as the shape of the structure is distorted. This

provides more resistance against geotube sliding and results in less
displacement, but at the same time lead to reduction in its height.
iii) When the geotube is unstable, the soil unit weight plays an important
role in the magnitude of the horizontal displacement of the geotube
with increasing the soil unit weight considerably decreases the
horizontal displacement. For Case 1 loading, half of the displacement
was obtained when the soil unit weight was increased from 17 to 21
kN/m3. Also, soil unit weight showed to have an increasing effect on
the geotextile tension (e.g. in Case 2, if soil unit weight increases from
20 to 21 kN/m3, the geotextile tension decreases from 640 to 590
kN/m)

iv) Soil elasticity modulus had a negligible effect on the horizontal

displacement, however, and based on the parameters used in this
study, there is a threshold above which the geotube exhibited the
attributes of a rigid body. For the unstable geotube and when soil
modulus is below 1 MPa, the horizontal displacement starts decreasing
because of increasing the contact length (e.g. the displacement
changes from 0.45 m to 0.36 m when the soil elasticity modulus varies
from 0.5 to 0.1 MPa). With increasing the soil elasticity modulus, the
geotextile tension decreases (e.g. increasing the soil elasticity modulus
from 0.1 to 0.5 MPa results in 25 percent reduction in the geotextile
tension)

v) Increasing the soil friction angle, more displacement is observed for an

unstable geotube (e.g in Case 2, if soil friction angle changes from 18
to 22 degrees, the horizontal displacement also increases from 0.40 to
0.42 m). On the other hand, a higher friction angle leads to a lower
tension in geotextile (e.g. a variation of the friction angle from 18 to
22 degrees results in a reduction in the geotextile tension from 750 to
680 kN/m.)

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Work in this paper was supported by the US Department of Homeland

Security under Award Number: 2008-ST-061-ND 0001.

Geo-Risk 2011
 GeoRisk 2011 © ASCE 2011 1054

DISCLAIMER

The views and conclusions contained in this document are those of the
authors and should not be interpreted as necessarily representing the official policies,
either expressed or implied, of the US Department of Homeland Security.

REFERENCES
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by East Carolina University on 09/25/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Cantre, S. (2002). “Geotextile tubes--analytical design aspects”, Journal of

Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 20, Issue 5, 305-319
Yalciner, A. C., Ergin, A. Pamukcu, S. and Derun B. A., (2006). “Performance of
perforated breakwaters constructed with geotextile tubes”. Journal of Coastal
Research, SI 39 (Proceedings of the 8th International Coastal Symposium),
750 -753.
Heilman, D. J., Perry, M. C., Thomas, R. C. and Kraus, N. C. (2008). “Interaction of
Shore-Parallel Geotextile Tubes and Beaches Along the Upper Texas Coast.”
US Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/CHL CHETN-II-51
Hiroi, I. (1920). “Evaluation of wave pressure.” Journal of JSCE 6 (2), 435–449.
Kazimierowicz, K. (1994). “Simple analysis of deformation of sand-sausages.” 5th
International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes, and Related
Products, Singapore, 775-778.
Kraus, N. C. and Lin L. (2009). “Hurricane Ike along the upper Texas coast: An
introduction.” Shore & Beach, Vol. 77, No. 2, 1-8
Leshchinsky, D., Leshchinsky, O., Ling, H. L., and Gilbert, P. A. (1996).
“Geosynthetic tubes for confining pressurized slurry: some design aspects.”
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122, No. 8, 682–690
Liu, G. S. (1981). “Design criteria of sand-sausages for beach defenses.”
International Association for Hydraulic Research: Summaries of Papers
Proceedings, New Delhi, India, 123-131.
Miratech. (2003) “Sand Dune Construction, Bolivar Peninsula, Geotube Structures”,
http://www.texasgulfcoastonline.com/portals/0/PDFs/Sand_Dune_Constructio
n_and_Geotubes_Bolivar_Peninsula.pdf
Oh, Y. I. and Shin, E. C. (2006). “Using submerged geotextile tubes in the protection
of the E. Korean shore” Coastal Engineering, Vol. 53, No. 11, 879-895
Plaut, R. H., and Suherman, S. (1998). “Two-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic
tubes.” Acta Mechanica, 129(1-4), 207-218.
Plaut R.H. and Klusman, C.R. (1999). “Two-dimensional analysis of stacked
geosynthetic tubes on deformable foundations.” Thin-Walled Structures, 34
(1999), 179–194
Shin, E. C. and Oh, Y. I. (2007). “Coastal erosion prevention by geotextile tube
technology.” Geotextiles and geomembranes, 25 (4-5), 264-277.
WRP Technical Note (1998). “Geotextile Tube Structures for Wetlands Restoration
and Protection.” WRP TN HS-RS-3.2, January 1998.

Geo-Risk 2011