28 C anals, Cutoffs, and 34 M ilitary Geotechnics 40 C racking the 54 R emote

the Vicksburg Campaign in the Ancient World Nuclear Code Sensing

JANUARY // FEBRUARY 2016

Military
GeoTechnics

Proudly published by the Geo-Institute of ASCE

 January // February 2016

Features
28 
Canals, Cutoffs, and the 54 
What’s New in Geo? Remote Sensing
Vicksburg Campaign A new revolution in geotechnical engineering.
How canals and cutoffs were used during the By Ellen M. Rathje

Vicksburg Campaign of the American Civil War.

By Danny W. Harrelson, Mansour Zakikhani, 62 
A Faculty Internship
and Amber L. Tillotson Reconnecting with the profession.
By Mary J. S. Roth

34 
Military Geotechnics in the
Ancient World REMAINING 2016 ISSUE THEMES
Geo-innovating the hard way. The GEOSTRATA Editorial Board has selected the following issue
By Dimitrios Zekkos themes for 2016. If you have an article idea or know someone who
might be interested in writing about one of these themes, please
send the details to geostrata@asce.org.
40 
Cracking the Nuclear Code March/April – Retaining Walls & Earth Retention (articles and authors
Finding an alternative to the nuclear density gauge. already selected)
By Ernest S. Berney, IV, and Mariely Mejias-Santiago
May/June – Transportation Geotechnics (articles and authors
already selected)
48 
Translating the Language of Soils July/August – Project Delivery (authors needed)
Developing a soil classification system for international
September/October – Ground Improvement (authors needed)
engineering projects.
November/December – Earthquake Geotechnics (authors needed)
By Jeb S. Tingle, Shelley L. Tingle, and Danny W. Harrelson

CONNECT WITH US

www.asce.org/geo twitter.com/GeoInstitute facebook.com/GeoInstitute LinkedInGeo GeoInstituteASCE

2 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

geoPier is ground imProvement®
Delivering cost-effective, reliable, engineered foundation systems

Providing Customized solutions for all soil tyPes

send us your ProjeCt data Geopier’s goal is to bring you advanced, innovative ground
Let our geotechnical engineers customize a solution that meets your improvement technology in a way that is easy to use every day.
needs. Submit your project details to receive a feasibility assessment Geopier Rammed Aggregate Pier® and rigid inclusion products
and cost estimate at geopier.com/feasibilityrequest enable you to:
• Improve variable fill soils in place
• Replace deep foundations
For more information call 800-371-7470, • Control settlement
e-mail info@geopier.com or visit geopier.com. • Increase soil bearing capacities

©2016 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. The Geopier® technology and brand names are protected under U.S. patents and trademarks listed at www.geopier.com/patents and other trademark applications and
patents pending. Other foreign patents, patent applications, trademark registrations, and trademark applications also exist.
 EDITORIAL BOARD
j J ames L. Withiam, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE, D’Appolonia
jlwithiam@dappolonia.com
j J . Tanner Blackburn, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, Hayward Baker
jtblackburn@haywardbaker.com
j J eff Dunn, PhD, PE, D.GE, GE, M.ASCE, Arup
January // February 2016 jeff.dunn@arup.com
jM
 organ Eddy, PE, M.ASCE, Steele Foundation, LLC
morgan@steelefoundationllc.com
Departments

j K en Fishman, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, McMahon & Mann

Consulting Engineers
8 
President’s Letter kfishman@mmce.net
By Kord Wissmann jB
 rian Hubel, PE, GE, M.ASCE, Black & Veatch Corp.
hubelb@bv.com
10 
From the Editorial Board jM
 ichael P. McGuire, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, Lafayette College
By Beth A. Gross mcguirem@lafayette.edu
j P eter G. Nicholson, PhD, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE,
11 
Letters Nicholson Geotechnical
peter.hawaii@gmail.com
12 
Technical Activities Update jW
 illiam K. Petersen, PE, M.ASCE, Schnabel Engineering
wpetersen@schnabel-eng.com
14 
COREBITS PEOPLE j V eronica L. Streich, PE, M.ASCE
Viki327@yahoo.com
16 
COREBITS STUDENTS
jC
 hris Woods, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE, Densification, Inc.
chris@densification.com
18  s I See It: Military Geotechnics –
A
Leveraging Extreme Engineering 2 0 1 5-1 6 G-I B O A R D O F
GOVERNORS
By Damon Manders
j K ord Wissman, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE – President
22  essons Learned from GeoLegends:
L jG
 arry H. Gregory, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE –
Donald H. Gray Vice President
By Suguang (Sean) Xiao, Hai (Thomas) Lin, and Hanna j Y oussef M. A. Hashash, PhD, PE, F.ASCE – Treasurer
Moussa Jabbour j A llen Cadden, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE – Past President
j J ames Collin, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
66 
The GeoCurmudgeon:
j P atrick J. Fox, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
Don’t Say That!
jB
 eth A. Gross, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
By John P. Bachner
j K ancheepuram N. Gunalan, PhD, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
70 
Look Who’s a D.GE jB
 rad Keelor – Secretary (non-voting)
An interview with Carol W. Bowers
G E O S T R ATA S TA F F
72 
G-I ORGANIZATIONAL j S tefan Jaeger – Publisher
MEMBER NEWS jD
 ianne Vance, CAE – Director of Advertising
dvance@asce.org
77 
COREBITS EVERYTHING G-I jM
 ichael Koutsourais, PE, M.ASCE –
Senior Technical Manager
77 
COREBITS CHAPTERS
j K ristie C. Kehoe – Content Coordinator
78 
COREBITS INDUSTRY j Helen Cook – Content Editor
j E lizabeth Cuscino – Content Editor
82 
COREBITS CAREER
j S ean Richardson – Production Manager
83 
COREBITS CALENDAR ADVERTISING SALES MANAGERS
83 
What’s Coming in March/April 2016 jB
 rooke King, Kelli Nilsson, McCall Mohanna

GEOSTRATA G E O S T R ATA D E S I G N

84 
GeoPoem: Dream World j T HOR Design Studio, www.thor.design

By Mary C. Nodine
GEOSTRATA is published by the Geo-Institute
and the American Society of Civil Engineers.
GEOSTRATA is a forum for the free expression and interchange
of ideas. The opinions and positions stated within are those of
the authors, and not necessarily those of GEOSTRATA, the
Geo-Institute, or the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).
GEOSTRATA—ISSN 1529-2975—is published bi-monthly by
ASCE, 1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400 and is
a free ASCE/Geo-Institute membership benefit, not available by
subscription. ADDRESS CHANGES: ASCE/G-I members should
e-mail memrec@asce.org, or click on “My Profile” at asce.org.
Copyright © 2016 by the American Society of Civil Engineers.
All rights reserved. Materials may not be reproduced or
translated without written permission from ASCE. Periodicals
postage paid at Herndon, VA, and at additional mailing offices.
POSTMASTER: Send address changes to GEOSTRATA, 1801
Alexander Bell Drive, Reston, VA 20191-4400.

ISSUE NO. 1 • VOLUME 20

4 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
 Pile Driving Analyzer ® System
PDA-8G
Backed by PDI’s commitment to quality,
research, innovation and support.

The best system for Dynamic Load Testing and Pile Driving Monitoring got sleeker,
faster and more powerful:

• High resolution touchscreen with gesture controls like swiping and pinch-to-zoom.
• Improved wireless data transfer rates, great for piles driven with fast hammers.
• Up to sixteen universal channels of wireless data acquisition.
(8 wireless channels make drilled shaft testing easier.)
• Intuitive new PDA-S software, identical when running on the PDA-8G or on
a computer, for a fast learning curve.
• Includes PDIPLOT2 and PDI-Curves to easily output customizable tables and
graphs and meet ASTM D4945 reporting requirements.

On site or remotely with

Get quick on site results by either Case Method or iCAP®, then marvel at the powerful
new version of CAPWAP®.

sales@pile.com
+1 216-831-6131 www.pile.com/pda
Aggravated by your Boring Log software?
Surprised by overusage charges?
Shocked by lack of new functionality?

There is a more efficient way to

manage all your geotechnical data...
• HoleBASE SI
Contact Dataforensics to find out how • HoleBASE SI Extension
Keynetix & Dataforensics products can help for AutoCAD Civil 3D
your organization increase your geotechnical • HoleBASE SI Extension
understanding of your sites. for Excel
• KeyLAB
Dataforensics is Keynetix only geotechnical • pLog Tablet
reseller within North America. • RAPID CPT

sales@dataforensics.net www.dataforensics.net 678-406-0106

Call +1 844-666-5582
info@keynetix.com

There is a more efficient way to

manage all your geotechnical data...
Atkins are using these Keynetix
products:
• HoleBASE SI Professional
• HoleBASE SI Extension for
AutoCAD Civil 3D
• HoleBASE SI Extension for
Microsoft Excel
HoleBASE SI enables us to increase our
geotechnical understanding of our project, and
significantly reduce the ground risk, before detailed
design starts. The ease of use, mapping interface,
location group functionality and Extensions for
Microsoft Excel and AutoCAD Civil 3D allow us
to interrogate our Site Investigation data quickly
and highlight any problems within a very short
period of time.
Simon Miles, Principle Geotechnical Engineer
Technical Authority for Geotechnical Data Management
ATKINS

keynetix.com/efficient
 President’s Letter

Is Geo Commoditization
Eating Your Lunch?
A nybody else feeling the pain of competition? Seems like all of us are feeling it
these days as we search for projects, bumping into a host of friendly competitors
vying for the same opportunity. It wasn’t always this way.
Back “in the day” when things were just getting started, there weren’t too many
of us. Only a few Terzaghis, Casagrandes, Pecks, Sowers, and Seeds. And on the other
side of the fence, a handful of Mueser Rutledges / Haley & Aldriches / Woodward
KORD WISSMANN
Clydes / Dames & Moores / Shannon & Wilsons. It was a great, big, new world,
replete with infrastructure, energy, water impoundment, high-rise building, and river
control projects — all needing an understanding of the forces applied and reactions
available. And so we researched and studied and learned and educated and practiced
this wonderful, newfound soil mechanics (and later geotechnical and geo-environ-
mental) world, and life was good. With time, the next generation of researchers and
practitioners then took charge and studied and researched and practiced… things
that were reasonably well understood and just a tad less mysterious. Our world spun,
our technology became clearer, there became more of us, each with similar skills,

8 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 Technical Committees
Computational Geotechnics
Chair – Jose Andrade, PhD,
M.ASCE
jandrade@caltech.edu
more easily replaceable — the classical transition from an Deep Foundations
Chair – Luis O. Garcia, PE,
emerging to a transactional market. M.ASCE
Now, here we are today making the best of it among a host logarcia@geocim.com
of colleagues, pining for the good old days that are unlikely Earth Retaining Structures
Chair – Dimitrios
to come back again… for some of us. But not for all of us. Konstantakos, PE, M.ASCE
Some, like some always do, will find ways to discover new dimitrios@deepexcavation.com
truths, advance into things we didn’t even know we didn’t Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics
know, and invent new tools and approaches that get us Chair – Adrian Rodriguez-
Marek, PhD, A.M.ASCE
there. These are the Vidals of Reinforced Earth, the Mercers adrianrm@vt.edu
of Tensar, the Duncans of geo-applied finite elements, the Embankments, Dams, and
Menards of in-situ testing tools. These are the folks with the Slopes
Chair – J. Erik Loehr, PhD, PE,
courage and conviction to go out on limbs and take risks, M.ASCE
following their intuition and, later, experience. So the ques- ELoehr@missouri.edu
tion becomes not “how do we recapture the good old days?” Engineering Geology and Site
Characterization
or even “how do we protect that which we have created for Chair – Xiong “Bill” Yu, PhD,
PE, M.ASCE
ourselves?” — rather it’s “who’s got something new that I’m xxy21@case.edu
interested in jumping on, and how do I access it?” Geoenvironmental
Which brings us to the subject of innovation and all of Engineering
Chair – Dimitrios Zekkos, PhD,
the hubris thereto. With the boom of smart phones, handy PE, M.ASCE
zekkos@umich.edu
apps, Ubers, and snapchats, everybody wants to figure out
how to create some of that themselves. Wouldn’t it be really Geophysical Engineering
Chair – Nenad Gucunski, PhD,
grand if there were technology start-ups for us Geos? How A.M.ASCE
gucunski@rci.rutgers.edu
come there aren’t, and how do we start to get some of this
Geosynthetics
magic? It seems that great innovations to peoplekind might Chair – Jorge Zornberg, PhD,
not be rooted in the tools that we use; rather, they are rooted PE, M.ASCE
zornberg@mail.utexas.edu
in the collective knowledge of a larger group, each connected
Geotechnics of Soil Erosion
through communication. This is a story that underpins Chair – Ming Xiao, PhD, PE,
Wikipedia and Linux open-source software, consistent with M.ASCE
mxiao@engr.psu.edu
the Internet’s first explosion of technology innovation in the
late 1990s, followed by the smartphone, app-driven boom
BOARD-LEVEL COMMITTEES
of today… all powered not so much by “technology,” but by
Awards Committee
huge improvements in communication and connectivity. Chair – Ken Fishman, PhD, PE,
Back to us Geos. If we want to rekindle the fire of M.ASCE
kfishman@mmce.net
discovery that fueled us in the first place, the obvious
Codes and Standards Council
starting point, then, is to vastly increase our connectivity. Chair – Kenneth R. Bell, PhD,
Where do we get connected? Lots of spots, of course, but the PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
krbell@bechtel.com
most obvious is right here at the home of the G-I — where
Continuing Education
it’s our mission to get this done for all of us. Better website, Committee
better GEOSTRATA, more local chapters, better Regional Chair – Andrea L. Welker, PhD,
PE, M.ASCE
Conferences, stronger, more client-focused (on you) andrea.welker@villanova.edu
technical committees… all of this is going on right in front of
Outreach and Engagement
you. Reach out to the G-I, get really well connected, learn all Committee
Chair – Menzer Pehlivan,
the greatest on bio-stabilization, visualization, risk, sustain- A.M.ASCE
ability, ground improvement, seismicity, and foundations menzer.pehlivan@gmail.com
— there’s a lot going on here. Geo-Congress Organizing
Committee
Interim Chair – Jim Rossberg,
PE, M.ASCE
jrossberg@asce.org
Geo-Legislative Committee
Chair – Jason B. Stoops, PE,
M.ASCE
Kord Wissmann, PhD, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE jbstoops@yahoo.com
Geo-Institute President International Activities
Council
kwissmann@geopier.com Chair – James L. Hanson, PE,
M.ASCE
jahanson@calpoly.edu
Grouting
Chair – Paolo Gazzarrini, P.Eng,
M.ASCE
paolo@groutline.com
Pavements
Chair – Charles W. Schwartz,
PhD, M.ASCE
schwartz@umd.edu
Risk Assessment and
Management
Chair – D. Vaughan Griffiths,
PhD, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
d.v.griffiths@mines.edu
Rock Mechanics
Chair – M. Ronald Yeung, PE,
M.ASCE
mryeung@csupomona.edu
Shallow Foundations
Chair – Daniel J. Rich, PhD, PE,
M.ASCE
danjrich@yahoo.com
Soil Improvement
Chair – Kyle M. Rollins, PhD,
M.ASCE
rollinsk@byu.edu
Soil Properties and Modeling
Chair – T. Matthew Evans,
A.M.ASCE
matt.evans@oregonstate.edu
Sustainability in Geotechnical
Engineering
Chair – Jeffrey R. Keaton, PhD,
PE, PG, D.GE, ENV SP, F.ASCE
jeff.keaton@amec.com
Underground Engineering
and Construction
Chair – Elizabeth M. Dwyre, PE,
D.GE, M.ASCE
dwyre@pbworld.com
Unsaturated Soils
Chair – Laureano Hoyos, PhD,
PE, M.ASCE
hoyos@uta.edu
Local Involvement Committee
Chair – Damian R. Siebert, PE,
M.ASCE
dsiebert@haleyaldrich.com
Nominations and Elections
Committee
Chair – Garry H. Gregory, PhD,
PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
ggregory@gregeo.com
Organizational Member
Council
Chair – Michelle E. Bolding, PE,
M.ASCE
mbolding@schnabel-eng.com
Student Participation
Committee
Chair – William A. Kitch, PhD,
PE, M.ASCE
william.kitch@angelo.edu
Technical Coordination
Council
Chair – Roman D. Hryciw, PhD,
M.ASCE
romanh@engin.umich.edu
Technical Publications
Committee
Chair – James L. Withiam, PhD,
PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
jlwithiam@dappolonia.com
Regional Conference
Committee
Chair – William M. Camp III,
PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
bcamp@smeinc.com
www.asce.org/geo 9
 From the Editorial Board
“Military engineering” is defined in Wikipedia
as “the art and practice of designing and
building military works and maintaining lines
of military transport and communications.”
Beginning in ancient times, military con-
structors with geotechnical and geological
experience, and in more recent times, engi-
neers have played significant roles in military
BETH A. GROSS
geotechnics through the development and
construction of combat and strategic infra-
structure, including fortifications, trenches,
canals, roads, and airfields. This issue of
GEOSTRATA focuses on military geotechnics
and includes examples from the days of early
civilization through the present.
In “Military Geotechnics in the Ancient World,”
Dimitrios Zekkos describes how construction of fortifica-
tion walls and towers, excavation of trenches and tunnels,
and installation of ramps, levees, and embankments were
part of most military strategies in ancient times. These
geotechnics played significant roles in the outcome of war-
fare. Because each geo-innovation was eventually met by a
technique that countered it, “ancient geotechnical military
engineers” needed to be true innovators to achieve victory.
Sometimes, the innovations initially attempted in
warfare were not successful due to a lack of fundamental
understanding or experience with the local ground
conditions and their influence on planned operations. In
“Canals, Cutoffs, and the Vicksburg Campaign,” Danny
Harrelson, Mansour Zakikhani, and Amber Tillotson
describe how canals and cutoffs were constructed
by Union forces during the American Civil War in an
attempt to hasten the capture of Vicksburg, MS, the
10 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
last Confederate stronghold on the
Mississippi River. While the Union forces
were constructing cofferdams and canals
and breaching levees, they were sub-
jected to artillery fire from Confederate
forces and fluctuating river levels that led
to slope failures and stranded dredges.
In his commentary, “Military
Geotechnics – Leveraging Extreme
Engineering,” Damon Manders discusses
the connection between military, civil,
and geotechnical engineering in the U.S.,
which began with the establishment of
the nation’s first engineering college,
the U.S. Military Academy at West Point,
NY, and later the first national civil
engineering laboratory, the Waterways
Experiment Station (WES) in Vicksburg,
MS. Since World War II, military and geo-
technical engineering research has led
to, among other things, rapid soil assess-
ment and classification technologies, soil
stabilizing material and equipment, and
geophysical techniques to detect mines
and tunnels and underseepage in levees.
With the U.S. engaged in military
operations around the world,
geotechnical engineers involved in
international engineering projects need
to understand diverse soil classification
systems. In “Translating the Language
of Soils,” Jeb Tingle, Shelley Tingle, and
Danny Harrelson present a new soil
classification system correlation table
established by the U.S. Army Engineering
Research and Development Center
(ERDC) to support U.S. Department of
Defense missions. This correlation table
is only a start — while it includes U.S.
and European systems, Asian soil classifi-
cation systems still need to be added.
 In “Cracking the Nuclear Code,”
Ernest Berney and Mariely Mejias-
Santiago discuss the military’s use
of nuclear density gauges (NGD) to
measure soil moisture and density
of compacted earthfill. The device is
impractical to use in military missions
that require rapid deployment, construc-
tion, and extraction because of its special
handling requirements. The authors also
present ERDC’s evaluation of alternatives
to NDGs. While there are a number of
other techniques to measure soil density,
most have significant disadvantages over
the nuclear gauge. The eGauge, a hybrid
of an electronic moisture gauge and low-
source nuclear density gauge, is a new
technology that looks promising.
Letters
Geotechnical
Risk Manangement
j j I’ve spent many hours fighting
with potential clients about the
contract issues Gary Brierley wrote
about in his article “Geotechnical Risk
Management” that was published in
the September/October 2015 issue
S E P/ O C T
2015
of GEOSTRATA. If I had articulated
these issues as clearly and succinctly 62
000656_GeoStrata_Sep_Oct2015_v5.FINAL.indd 62
as Gary did, perhaps I would have won more battles. Many thanks for
highlighting these issues in a well thought out article. I also hope more of
our colleagues will read Brierley’s article and seek to eliminate these contract
risks, as it’s not like the risks underground are not great enough.
David W. Kozera, PE, M.ASCE
Owner, D.W. Kozera, Inc.
Baltimore, MD
dkozera@dwkozera.com
GEOSTRATA welcomes letters to the editor. Some letters may be edited to
suit style and space guidelines. Please send them to us at geostrata@asce.org.
This issue also includes two
articles unrelated to military engi-
neering. In the first article, “A Faculty
Internship: Reconnecting with the
Profession,” Professor Mary Roth
describes her week-long internship
with an engineering consulting firm
and the benefits of this professional
connection between academia and
industry. In the second, Professor
Ellen Rathje describes advances in
remote sensing using satellite imagery
for geotechnical engineering in her
“What’s New in Geo” article.
Finally, Suguang (Sean) Xiao, Hai
(Thomas) Lin, and Hanna Moussa
Jabbour present their interview of our
latest Geo-Legend, Donald H. Gray, a
Risk Management
GEO-MÉLANGE
GEOSTRATA SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2015
8/25/15 10:29 AM 000656_GeoStrata_Sep_Oct2015_v5.FINAL.indd 63
Geotechnical
The five non-technical topics that are crucial for
the successful practice of geotechnical engineering
By Gary S. Brierley, PhD, PE, F.ASCE
It is fair to state that the aspects of civil design and construction referred to as “geotechnical
engineering” can be characterized as inherently risky. Geologic processes are complex, and
the manner in which the resulting soil, rock, and groundwater conditions interact with
construction operations is equally complicated. Hence, the process of investigating the
ground and preparing geotechnical engineering reports, drawings, and specifications is
fraught with risk at many levels.
Geotechnical professionals are generally familiar with the risks
that technical issues can pose on a project, but what about the
non-technical issues? Five non-technical topics that are crucial
for the successful practice of geotechnical engineering include:
o Risk Exposure – How do geotechnical professionals become
involved with problematic situations?
o Assignment Selection – What can geotechnical professionals
do to avoid projects with unacceptable risk profiles?
o Contract Negotiation – What issues and potential problems
are associated with professional service negotiations?
o Scope of Services – How can the project scope of services be
managed so as to minimize potential problems?
o Project Management – How can the firm and its personnel
be managed to help ensure that non-technical issues are
considered in a proper manner?
This article is not intended to provide legal advice or to
address the risks associated with environmental remediation
projects. In addition, the term ”client” in this article refers
Professor Emeritus of civil and environ-
mental engineering at the University
of Michigan and researcher and
practitioner in slope bio-stabilization
and landforming.
This issue of GEOSTRATA includes
history, warfare, geotechnical engi-
neering of military infrastructure, and
some current challenges to military
geotechnics. We hope you enjoy it.
This message was prepared by
BETH A. GROSS, PHD, PE, M.ASCE, a
member of the G-I Board of Governors,
and its liaison to the GEOSTRATA
Editorial Board. She can be reached at
bgross@geosyntec.com.
Did You Know? —
Help Us Create a New
GEOSTRATA Feature
Soil mechanics has been a discipline for almost
100 years due to the contributions of many
well-known and not-so-well known persons.
For example, at the IFCEE 2015 conference in
San Antonio, TX, I heard for the first time why
a thin-walled tube is called a “Shelby” tube. I’m
sure there are many types of equipment, design
to several parties, such as project owners, architects, and
methods, terminology, and the like that we use
prime designers working on a design-bid-build project. A
completely different set of nontechnical issues would need to
be evaluated relative to working for a contractor on a design-
build project.
Risk Exposure
The number of risks associated with geotechnical engineering
is long and contains numerous legal interpretations that are
in daily practice, but what do we know about
convoluted and highly variable among the different state
and federal jurisdictions. The bottom line, however, is that
geotechnical design professionals acquire liability on a project
as a result of disappointed project outcomes and/or unrealized
project expectations.
Owners and other project participants have a right to
expect that the geotechnical professional’s design will result
in a completed facility that is adequate for its intended pur-
pose and functions as anticipated. Imagine, for a moment,
how they came to be or be named? Before they
that your completed facility is magically placed into the
ground exactly in accordance with your recommendations.
www.asce.org/geo 63
8/25/15 10:29 AM
are lost to history, we hope this new feature in
GEOSTRATA will inform, entertain, and help
answer the question, “Did You Know?”
“Did You Know?” will be limited to 500 words
plus a graphic and short author bio. If you have
an idea for a “Did You Know?” feature, please
email a title and 50-word abstract about your
proposed contribution to geostrata@asce.org.
— James L. Withiam
www.asce.org/geo 11
 Technical Activities Update
The G-I is pleased to bring you a technical activities
update in this and future editions of our flagship
publication GEOSTRATA. We are anticipating and
planning for a very active year with the upcoming
joint G-I/SEI Congress in February, followed by several
specialty conferences and live seminars throughout
the year. Below is a schedule of upcoming events:
Congresses and Specialty Conferences
oo Annual Geo-Congress: Geotechnical and
Structural Engineering Congress – Phoenix, AZ;
February 14-17, 2016
oo Specialty Conference on Sustainability:
GeoChicago 2016: Sustainability, Energy,
and the Geoenvironment – Chicago, IL;
August 14-18, 2016
oo Rocky Mountain Geo-Conference 2016 –
Lakewood, CO; November 4, 2016
Face-to-Face Seminars
oo Design of Foundations for Dynamic Loads
M. Hesham El Naggar, PhD, P.Eng, M.CSCE,
F.EIC, F.ASCE  technical committees. These proposals are currently
Ayman Shama, PhD, PE, LEED AP BD+C, F.ASCE  being reviewed by our Technical Coordination
Scottsdale, AZ; January 27-29, 2016
oo Dam Breach Analysis Using HEC-RAS
Christopher R. Goodell, PE, D.WRE, M.ASCE
Martin J. Teal, PE, PH, D.WRE, F.ASCE
Brian Wahlin, PhD, PE, D.WRE, M.ASCE
Raymond Walton, PhD, PE, D.WRE, F.ASCE
Las Vegas, NV; February 3-5, 2016
oo Earthquake Induced Ground Motions
Praveen K. Malhotra, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Nashville, TN; February 11-12, 2016
oo Design of Foundations for Dynamic Loads
M. Hesham El Naggar, PhD, P.Eng, M.CSCE,
F.EIC, F.ASCE  Dist.M.ASCE
Ayman Shama, PhD, PE, LEED AP BD+C, F.ASCE  oo Approaches to Grouting in Karst - Jan. 28, 2016
Baltimore, MD; March 2-4, 2016
oo Soil and Rock Slope Stability
Sunil Sharma, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Stanley M. Miller, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Brentwood, TN; March 3-4, 2016
oo Construction Dewatering and Ground Control
– Design and Application
Paul C. Schmall, PhD, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
Gregory M. Landry, PE, M.ASCE
Denver, CO; March 10-11, 2016
oo Risk-Based Seismic Design and Evaluation
Praveen K. Malhotra, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Philadelphia, PA; March 10-11, 2016
oo Deep Foundations: Design, Construction, and
Quality Control
Aaron Budge, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Joseph A. Caliendo, PhD, PE, F.ASCE
Jerry A. DiMaggio, PE, M.ASCE, D.GE
Mohamad H. Hussein, PE, M.ASCE
Orlando, FL; March 14-15, 2016
oo Earth Retaining Structures: Selection, Design,
Construction, and Inspection - Now In LRFD
Format
Barry R. Christopher, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Jerry A. DiMaggio, PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
Thomas D. Richards, Jr., PE, D.GE, M.ASCE
Silas Nichols, Aff.M.ASCE
Paul J. Sabatini, PhD, PE, M.ASCE
Burak F. Tanyu, PhD
Orlando, FL; March 17-18, 2016
New Webinars
The below webinars are new to the G-I for Winter
2016, and all are provided from 11:30 am to 1:00
pm EST.
oo In-Situ Stabilization of Soil Slopes Using Nailed
(or Anchored) Geosynthetics - Jan. 20, 2016
Robert M. Koerner, PhD, PE, D.GE, NAE,
Michael J. Byle, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE continued on page 14
oo Low-Mobility Grouting - Feb. 18, 2016
Michael J. Byle, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
oo Selected Topics on Geosynthetic Clay Liners -
Feb. 22, 2016
Robert M. Koerner, PhD, PE, D.GE, NAE,
Dist.M.ASCE
oo Geotechnical Investigations in Karst -
March 11, 2016
Michael J. Byle, PE, D.GE, F.ASCE
The following new webinars are coming soon in
Spring 2016:
oo Effect of Fill Soil Structures on Subsurface
Utilities and Adjacent Structures
oo Geotechnical Analysis for Rock-socketed
Drilled Shafts
Technical Committees and Chapters
To help us in our mission to develop and distribute
State-of-the-Art and State-of-the-Practice content
to our members, the G-I has 20 technical commit-
tees and 36 local chapters in 27 states. In October
2015, the G-I received 15 project proposals from its
Council and the G-I Board of Governors. Stay tuned
to see which proposals are selected for funding.
oo Embankments, Dams, and Slopes Committee.
This committee, led by Erik Loehr, PhD, PE,
M.ASCE, will reconvene a panel discussion enti-
tled “Levees – Lessons from Tohoku to Katrina,”
originally presented at the 2013 Geo-Congress.
The original discussion in 2013 provided vital
information on the last decade’s vulnerability of
levees and the disastrous human and economic
consequences of failure. This time, the panel
discussion will be recorded in front of a live
studio audience at the ASCE headquarters in

Cross-USA Lectures:
As presented in the November/December 2015 issue of GEOSTRATA, Jean-Louis Briaud, PhD, PE, D.GE, Dist.M.ASCE, will present the Cross-USA Geo-Institute Lecture
series according to the following schedule. For more information on specific topics, times, and locations for these events, please contact the host directly.

DATE CITY STATE SITE CONTACT CONTACT EMAIL

02/25/16 Pittsburgh PA PA Chapter Brian Heinzl bheinzl@gfnet.com
02/26/16 Cleveland OH CWRU Bill Yu xxy21@case.edu
02/29/16 Berkeley CA UC Berkeley Jonathan Bray jonbray@berkeley.edu
03/01/16 Seattle WA Univ. of WA Alex Grant agrant3@uw.edu
03/03/16 Fairbanks AK Univ. of AK Xiong Zhang xzhang11@alaska.edu
Mike McGuire michael.p.mcguire@gmail.com
03/15/16 Valley Forge PA Delaware Valley
James Beideman jbeideman@kleinfelder.com
03/21/16 Melbourne FL FL Inst. of Technology Paul Cosentino cosentin@fit.edu
03/22/16 Atlanta GA GA Chapter Rudy Saavedra rsaavedra@slope.com
03/23/16 Fayetteville AR Univ. of AR Sean Salazar ssalazar@uark.edu

12 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 COREBITS PEOPLE
Hamel Becomes Honorary
AEG member
James V. Hamel, PhD, PE, PG, F.ASCE, of Hamel
Geotechnical Consultants, Monroeville, PA, has been inducted
as an honorary member of the Association of Environmental
and Engineering Geologists (AEG). The honor was bestowed
at the organization’s annual meeting in Pittsburgh, PA, on
September 24, 2015. Hamel was cited for his contributions to
research and practice in geotechnical engineering and engi-
neering geology, with particular reference to his work with
landslides, slope stability, and dams.
Tamaro Berkel Trevisani
DFI Names Recipients of foundation problems and slurry wall
Inaugural Legends Awards construction. He is a noted expert on
In 2015, the Deep Foundations Institute slurry wall and tieback technology.
(DFI) and the DFI Educational Trust
established an award to honor practitioners Contractor Legend — Charles J. Berkel,
who have made significant contributions PE (deceased), chairman of the board
and advancements to the research, design, of Berkel & Company Contractors, Inc.
construction, manufacturing, and use of Berkel started his company in 1959 and
deep foundations. The Legends Program grew it to become one of the largest piling
recognizes three awardees — an engineer, contractors in the U.S. He was a charter
contractor, and manufacturer/supplier — member of DFI, a recipient of the 2007
who have shown steadfast professionalism, DFI Distinguished Service Award, and a
character and integrity, and have made a major donor to the DFI Educational Trust
broad impact on the industry with contri- Scholarship Program.
butions that are pivotal today.
The first recipients of this prestigious Manufacturer/Supplier Legend —
award are: Davide Trevisani, president and founder
of TREVI Group. Trevisani established
Engineering Legend — George J. Trevi SpA in 1957; it is now one of the
Tamaro, PE, D.GE, NAE, Hon.M.ASCE, leading specialty foundations engineering
consultant with Mueser Rutledge companies in the world. In 1969, he
Consulting Engineers. A structural formed Soilmec, a world leader in the
engineer with more than 50 years of design and manufacturing of plants and
experience in foundation engineering, equipment used for special foundations
he is an innovator in the field of difficult and drilling work.
14 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
continued from page 12
Washington, DC, which will allow future access
by G-I members.
oo Grouting Committee and Soil Improvement
Committee. In addition to planning and orga-
nizing a 2017 Specialty Conference on Grouting,
Deep Mixing, and Diaphragm Walls, which will
be held in Hawaii in July 2017, this committee,
led by Paolo Gazzarrini, P.Eng, M.ASCE, will
be focused on creating a series of lectures on
grouting and soil improvement, respectively,
and delivering them to local G-I chapters across
the country. The lectures will discuss different
aspects of grouting and soil improvement tech-
niques and will be available for any committee
member who would be willing to present them
at local G-I chapters.
oo Risk Assessment and Management Committee.
Led by D. Vaughan Griffiths, PhD, PE, D.GE,
F.ASCE, this committee is in the process of
planning and organizing its next Specialty
Conference, Geo-Risk 2017, which will be held
in downtown Denver, CO, from June 4–6, 2017.
This conference is the first specialty conference
offered by ASCE on geotechnical risk since
Geo-Risk 2011 in Atlanta. It will also be the 6th
offering of the International Symposium on
Geotechnical Safety and Risk (ISGSR), a success-
ful biennial series of international conferences
most recently held in Rotterdam (2015) and
Hong Kong (2013). It is also the first time the
ISGSR series of international conferences has
been hosted in the U.S.
The theme of Geo-Risk 2017 is
“Geotechnical Risk: From Theory to Practice”
and will feature the latest research advances
and engineering-practice innovations, with
a focus on the use of probabilistic and risk
methodologies in geotechnical engineering.
The conference will include a wide range of
knowledge-enhancing technical sessions, short
courses, workshops, and software demonstra-
tions. Several hundred U.S. and international
participants from industry, academia, and
government agencies are expected to attend.
oo Unsaturated Soils Committee. Led by Laureano
Hoyos, PhD, M.ASCE, this committee is in the
process of planning and organizing PanAm-
UNSAT2017: Second Pan American Conference
on Unsaturated Soils, which will be held in
Dallas, TX, September 10-13, 2017.
PanAm-UNSAT 2017 will follow a series of
successful regional and international confer-
ences on unsaturated soils, bringing together
researchers, practitioners, students, and policy
makers from around the world to share the lat-
est research advances and engineering practice
innovations in the unsaturated soil mechanics
discipline with a focus on characterization,
modeling, design, construction, and field
performance.
 Your True Project Partner
You have partnered with us on your piling needs, now you can count on Skyline Steel for
the most comprehensive line of geostructural products.
■■ Cold Rolled Threaded Bars & Accessories
■■ Hot Rolled Threaded Bars & Accessories
■■ Multi-Strand Anchor Systems
■■ Hollow Bar Systems
■■ Threaded Casing for Micropiles

Skyline Steel is a premier steel foundation supplier with a worldwide network of

manufacturing and stocking locations.

See how Skyline Steel can help with your next geostructural project.
Visit www.skylinesteel.com or call 888.450.4330.

© 2016 Skyline Steel, LLC. Skyline Steel is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Nucor Corporation, the largest producer of steel in the United States.
Exclusive Distributors of Anker Schroeder
www.asce.org/geo
within NAFTA and Caribbean Countries
15
 COREBITS STUDENTS

ASCE Solicits Applications for Student Program at the

Geotechnical & Structural
Scholarships and Fellowships Engineering Congress 2016
This Congress includes several special
ASCE offers tuition assistance to engineering students through seven Society events designed to welcome and help
scholarships and four Society fellowships. Awards vary depending on demonstrated students make the most of their experience.
ASCE offers tuition assistance to engineering students through seven Society scholarships In addition to the Geo-Structures Student
and four Society fellowships. Awards vary depending on demonstrated academic success, Challenge on Monday, February 15, students
financial need, and career goals, but are typically $2,000 to $8,000. The Trent R. Dames are invited to participate in:
and William W. Moore Fellowship should be of particular interest to geotechnical engi- i M eet the Leaders
neering graduate students. Sunday, February 14, 1:00 – 2:30 p.m.
Applications for 2016 are due February 10. For further details and downloadable Students (and young professionals) are
application forms, please visit asce.org/Scholarships and asce.org/ASCE_Fellowships. invited to attend this special event: an
For assistance, please contact awards@asce.org. opportunity to participate in a discussion
with leaders of both the geotechnical
and structural engineering professions.
Leaders will share their experiences
throughout their careers, provide invalu-
Is your major project
able career insights, and join roundtable
being managed by discussions on specific topics of interest

A Board
to students and young professionals.
i Student and Young Professionals

Certified
Reception
Sunday, February 14, 2:30 – 3:30 p.m.
After meeting the leaders, get revved up

Civil for the Congress by joining them at this

special networking opportunity. Spend

Engineer? an hour in the company of new friends

and colleagues exchanging personal tips
and histories.

To receive the ticket required to

participate, students must RSVP during
registration for these two events. The
events are offered only to full-time
students who purchase a full student
registration package. More details are
available at geo-structures.org/program/
StudentandYoungProfessionals.php.

A Message from the G-I

Keep up with G-I news and relevant geo-
information by following the G-I on Facebook,
Twitter, and LinkedIn. Also, keep up with
www.asce.org/certification student info on the Student page of the G-I
website at: students.geoinstitute.org.

16 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

DFP TAPERTUBE ® PILES...
THE BEST HIGH CAPACITY
FRICTION PILES

DFP Tapertube Piles...

A Foundation For Success
Project-proven Tapertubes are a dramatic leap forward in
on-the-job pile performance. Superior design and robust
construction means this remarkable product delivers big
advantages over conventional piles or other tapered piles.
Tapertube piles are the only tapered piles available with heavier
wall thicknesses ranging up to 0.500" produced from 50 ksi steel.
Directly driven, no mandrel or butt reinforcement required.
Cast steel conical driving points supplied.
Tapertube size and geometry can be configured to most
effectively meet capacity requirements and soil conditions.

PO Box 688 | Franklin Lakes, NJ 07417-0688

201-337-5748 | fax: 201-337-9022 | www.pileline.com
 As I See It

Military Geotechnics –
Leveraging Extreme Engineering
By Damon Manders

Military engineers face some of

the most extreme design and
construction conditions in the
world. After all, military struc-
tures must be strong enough to
support the heaviest equipment
in use, survive damaging attacks,
and protect soldiers from harm.
They must also be rapidly
deployable and have a small
logistical footprint. There’s no
question that civil engineers
can and do benefit from the
lessons learned through military
geotechnics.
Did you know that the U.S. engineering
experience originated in military engineering?
Influenced by French engineers during the
founding era, the United States established the
U.S. Military Academy at West Point, NY, the
nation’s first engineering college. Prior to World
War II, the U.S. government relied primarily
on military engineers – the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps) – to complete most large-scale
A field in-place California Bearing Ratio apparatus, used widely to analyze civil projects. Most of these projects, such as river
runways during World War II. (Photo courtesy of the U.S. Army Engineer and harbor improvements, met both military and
Research and Development Center [ERDC].) civil objectives. The principles learned in building

18 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016


fortifications and roads found ready
application in the construction of levees
and dams.
Because of this military-civil
connection, in 1928 Congress created
the first national civil engineering
laboratory, the Waterways Experiment
Station, in Vicksburg, MS. From the
beginning, geotechnical and structural
research were key components of these
efforts. Understanding why levees failed
required development of the first soil
classification system and sampling
methods for projects on the Mississippi
River. Influenced by soil mechanics pio-
neers such as Karl Terzaghi and Arthur
Casagrande, the Corps developed new
laboratory equipment and techniques,
and conducted early research in liquefac-
tion, resistivity, and permeability.
During World War II, soil mechanics
research was a crucial nexus between
military and civil engineering, which
often cut both ways. At first, civil
research greatly aided military engi-
neering, such as the application of the
California Bearing Ratio to the construc-
tion of runways to support the heavy
B-19 bomber. The military made many
improvements to civil technologies and
practices, such as the development of
a portable cone penetrometer to assess
soil trafficability before an invasion.
Since the Cold War ended, most
Corps geotechnical research has
focused on military rather than civil
applications. Trafficability research
led to continued improvements in
force projection by delivering better
pavements and more mobile vehicles.
Development of force protection
measures greatly improved building
survivability. Recent focus has been
on delivering easily deployable and
transportable engineering capabilities
The Critical Runway Assessment and Repair (CRATR) program, a collection of runway
repair technologies, enabled 10, five-person teams to complete 100 repairs in less
than eight hours. (Photo courtesy of the ERDC.)
and products, such as concertainers
and modular protective systems, which
are portable containers and expandable
composite panels used to rapidly build
berms and walls or overhead cover.
Over the years, military geotechnical
research has made several important
contributions to civil engineering.
Examples include:
oo Programs such as Joint Rapid Airfield
Construction (JRAC) and Critical
Runway Assessment and Repair
(CRATR), which include modeling
and planning software, rapid soil
assessment and classification
technologies, soil stabilizing material
and equipment, and expedient repair
material, have obvious application
to highway and airport construction.
In tests on military runways, these
technologies reduced the average
time for construction and repair of
pavements from days to hours and
promise to do the same for civilian
airstrips and roads.
oo The Army has experimented with
numerous building technologies,
including blast-resistant glass, windows
and door frames with anchors, building
frames and braces of varying materials,
anchored steel studs, and geotextiles
or polymer coatings used to prevent
hazardous debris breaking away from
masonry and concrete walls. These
technologies proved to be immensely
important during the September 11,
2001 attack on the Pentagon, when
one wedge of the building previously
retrofitted with these technologies
withstood much of the shock of the
plane crash. Such innovations have
wide applicability in civil construction
to protect structures from explosions
and crashes, as well as earthquakes,
floods, and other stressors.
oo Expertise gained in explosions and
force protection has found other
civil uses. The Corps investigated
structures after the 1995 Oklahoma
City bombing, the 1996 bombing of
the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia,
and the 2001 terrorist attack on
the Pentagon. As members of the
Interagency Performance Evaluation
Task Force, Corps experts such as Reed
Mosher, Mike Sharp, and Paul Mlakar
www.asce.org/geo 19
 As I See It

played key roles in investigating
the causes of floodwall failure after
Hurricane Katrina in 2005. They
helped identify the mechanism of
failure as tilt of I-walls on the 17th
Street Canal that increased hydrostatic
pressure and split the levees. That
same expertise has allowed the Corps
to experiment widely with dam failures
under cyclic static and dynamic loads,
including earthquakes.
oo The Corps has long experimented
with ground-penetrating radar,
electromagnetic induction (EMI), DC
electrical resistivity, capacitively cou-
pled resistivity (CCR), and magnetic
and seismic sensors to detect mines
and tunnels, as well as to detect
underseepage in levees and model
groundwater. It used light detection
and ranging technology (LIDAR) to
rapidly create 3-D terrain models and
maps for military and civilian use.
These technologies helped engineers
estimate the material needed to
repair levees following Hurricane
Katrina and have since aided
reevaluation of levees nationwide.
While civil engineers used some of
these technologies before, the Army
has greatly expanded applicability
and capability, for example by adding
wavelengths of the electromagnetic
spectrum to improve penetration
depth or by combining technologies
to improve performance.
A few of the military geotechnical
technologies or capabilities that have
found civil use are discussed in this
issue. The military has proven to be a
testing ground for new technologies,
with geotechnics among the most
prominent. Future generations and
civil works infrastructure will continue
to benefit from research in military
geotechnics.
j DAMON MANDERS is a contract historian
working for the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. He is the author of Improving the
Common Stock of Knowledge: Research
and Development in the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers. He can be reached at
Jon.D.Manders@usace.army.mil.

Where theory
meets practice.
At Penn’s Master of Science in Applied Geosciences (MSAG) program, we don’t
prepare students to make a difference once they graduate. They start right away.

Through internships, field work and projects tailored to their individual career goals,
students gain real experience in their field of choice and get a year’s head start on
licensure as a Professional Geologist.

To learn more about the program and read about the difference you can make
as a Penn MSAG student, visit

www.uPenn.edu/MSAG.

Earn a masters degree in Applied Geosciences

without interrupting your career. Full-time and
part-time tracks are available. Students can
complete this 12-course master’s degree
program in just two to four years.

20 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 Lessons Learned from GeoLegends
Donald H. Gray,
PhD, M.ASCE
By Suguang (Sean) Xiao, EIT, S.M.ASCE, Hai (Thomas) Lin, EIT, S.M.ASCE,
and Hanna Moussa Jabbour, S.M.ASCE
2015 Peck Lecture presentation.
22 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
D
r. Donald Gray has more than 50 years of teaching
and engineering experience as a leader in the analysis
and design of environmentally friendly bio-stabi-
lization techniques. He is a Professor Emeritus of civil and
environmental engineering at the University of Michigan. Gray
earned a bachelor’s degree in geological engineering (1959), a
master’s degree in petroleum engineering (1961), and a PhD in
civil engineering (1966), all from the University of California,
Berkeley. He began teaching at the University of Michigan in
1966 and was promoted to full professor in 1975.
Gray has taught courses on the engineering properties
of soils, soil/site improvement, slope stability, engineering
geology, foundation engineering, and bio-technical slope
protection at the University of Michigan. His industrial expe-
riences include employment as a petroleum engineer with
Mobil International Oil Company and Chevron Research. He
has also served as a consultant or technical advisor to the
National Park Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the Natural
Resources Conservation Service, the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the California Levee Vegetation Research
Program. He has testified as an expert witness in more than
20 cases dealing with geotechnical and geo-environmental
issues.
Gray has coauthored two leading reference books on
slope bio-stabilization, Biotechnical and Soil Bioengineering
Slope Stabilization: A Practical Guide for Erosion Control and
Bioengineering Case Studies: Sustainable Stream Bank and
Slope Stabilization. He also served as a principal investigator
in a three-year project titled “Environmentally Sensitive
Channel and Streambank Protection Measures,” which
was funded by the National Cooperative Highway Research
Program. He is an experienced writer and technical editor
of many magazine articles on a variety
of subjects ranging from personal
interviews to travel pieces.
Gray received the 2015 Ralph B.
Peck Award from ASCE for his unique
and long-standing contributions as a
researcher, educator, and consultant
in promoting bio-stabilization and
landforming through the careful and
comprehensive documentation and
publication of numerous case histories.

Q: What encouraged you to pursue

geotechnical engineering?
First, I had a general curiosity about
engineering properties and behavior
of soil. I have an undergraduate degree
in geological engineering; therefore
an advanced degree in geotechnical
engineering seemed like a good match
for additional study. Furthermore, when
I was pursuing my master’s degree in
petroleum engineering, I enrolled in a
course taught by Prof. James K. Mitchell
at the University of California on The
Physical and Chemical Properties of
Soils. This course played an important
role because I thought that was an
attractive area I would like to specialize
in for advanced graduate study.
Q: How did you first become inter-
ested in slope bio-stabilization?
I’ve always been interested in the
influence of woody vegetation on the
stability of slopes and the adverse
effects of its removal on slope stability.
It seemed clear that vegetation has an
important influence on both surficial
and mass stability. I also encountered
a circular in the University of Michigan
Science Library (published in 1936)
titled Erosion Control on Mountain
Roads that described in some detail
the early use of techniques such as live
fascines and brushlayers. The circular
strongly sparked my interest in bio-
stabilization as well.
The authors with Professor Gray. From l-r, Suguang (Sean) Xiao, Professor Gray, Hai
(Thomas) Lin, Hanna Moussa Jabbour.
Q: Can we combine vegetation and
conventional structures for the
slope stabilization?
Yes. There are several approaches for
soil stabilization. On the one hand,
there is the traditional engineering
approach — namely, the use of inert
materials, like concrete retaining walls
and rock armor. On the other, there’s
the use of vegetation alone, such as
grasses and herbaceous plants that are
used mainly for controlling surficial
erosion. In between, we can combine
inert structures with live vegetation,
either woody transplants or live
cuttings. That’s what bio-stabilization
is all about.
Q: Does vegetation have negative
effects on the slope stabilization?
Yes. In some cases, there could be a
potential adverse effect. For example,
the use of camphor trees for planting
near a sidewalk extension is a very
poor choice of vegetation. Camphor
trees have an elephantine root system
that tends to bulge out of the soil and
heave up a sidewalk pavement. So,
occasionally vegetation does cause
some problems.
But, I think these problems are
overblown. In most cases, vegetation
has either neutral or beneficial effects
on structures. For example, in the case
of hedgerow walls in southern England
and Normandy France, vegetation is
purposely inserted into the wall. The
Cornish hedgerow wall is basically a
dry laid stone wall with an earthen
core. When the stones are placed, live
cuttings of vegetation are purposely
inserted between the stones. So instead
of disrupting the wall and displacing
the stones, the roots flow around the
stones and bind the entire wall together
into a cohesive, unitary mass. During
the Normandy Invasion of World War II,
allied troops ran into these hedgerow
walls and had great difficulty penetrat-
ing them, even with heavily armored

www.asce.org/geo 23
 Lessons Learned from GeoLegends
Inspecting a watershed restoration project.
tanks. The walls were tough and
resistant to any sort of displacement
because of the live roots and plant
stems in the wall that functioned as
reinforcements.
Q: What is the future of slope
stability in the next 10 years?
I think an increasing emphasis will be
placed on probabilistic methods as
opposed to deterministic approaches.
Probabilistic approaches allow you to
account for parametric uncertainty
and variability, which the deterministic
methods are not designed to do. In the
case of bio-stabilization techniques,
there will be increasing efforts to
develop and publish useful design
guidelines.
24 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Q: What do you consider to be your
best career achievement?
Most likely, active participation in proj-
ects that involve preparing publications
and guidelines about the use of bio-
technical or bioengineering measures
to protect slopes and stream banks. A
good example is a project which largely
formed the basis of guidelines that
were incorporated into the publication
of NCHRP Report 544, Environmentally
Sensitive Channel and Bank Protection
Measures. This was an important effort
because it was the first publication
in the U.S. that described many
different bio-stabilization measures in
detail with relevant case studies. The
project was supported by a grant from
the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program. The measures and
case studies described in the NCHRP
report became the fundamental basis
of my 2015 Peck Lecture.
Q: What is the difference between
consulting and expert witness
testimony?
In both cases, you are working for a
client who expects you to provide your
best professional advice or opinion in a
convincing manner. How that advice or
opinion is presented can certainly differ.
A geotechnical consultant often presents
opinions in a written report with the
leisure of time to think about the issue.
When you are in the courtroom giving
testimony, however, you are forced to
think on your feet and come up with a
convincing answer on the spot. That is
an important difference.
 The clients or recipients in these
two cases are different. As a consultant,
you may be reporting to a client,
e.g., another engineer. While in the
The Cornish hedgerow wall is basically a
courtroom, you are presenting your
information to the judge or jury. In dry laid stone wall with an earthen core.
court, you have to refrain from using
technical jargon or at least explain
yourself so laypeople can understand.
When the stones are placed, live cuttings of
As an expert, you have to be careful
to avoid testifying outside of your field vegetation are purposely inserted between
of expertise in the courtroom. Many
experts get into trouble because attor- the stones. During the Normandy Invasion
neys purposely start asking questions
about things an expert may not know
much about. If you start giving opin- of World War II, allied troops ran into these
ions on things you are not sure about,
you can get into big trouble. hedgerow walls and had great difficulty
The other thing is you have to give
truthful and credible testimony. My
wife told me that I looked truthful on
penetrating them, even with heavily armored
the witness stand. But, some people
don’t look truthful and can appear eva- tanks. The walls were tough and resistant
sive. If you start becoming evasive, the
jury may question your credibility and to any sort of displacement because of the
truthfulness. So you need to respond to
questions in the courtroom in a profes-
sional manner and with an appropriate live roots and plant stems in the wall that
demeanor. An attorney once told me
that I shouldn’t put my hands near my functioned as reinforcements.
mouth when testifying because that
would make me look unprofessional.

Q: What are some upcoming

research areas for geotechnical
engineering?
I predict that soil stabilization with
biological organisms will be a prime
candidate. (Editor’s Note: See Jason
DeJong’s “What’s New in Geo?” article
on sustainable biogeotechnics on p. 24
of the September/October 2015 issue of
GEOSTRATA). Microbial geotechnology because they can penetrate into as a geological engineer. Unfortunately,
is a recent and rapidly emerging field of smaller areas and operate in hostile a big slump in the petroleum industry
investigation. Microbial cementation environments where plant roots won’t occurred at that time. So I decided to
using fungal hyphae and bacteria work, like deserts or contaminated go back to school and get my master’s
will open up new areas of research soils. degree in petroleum engineering to
and potential applications. The bide my time. Afterward, I went to work
cementitious excretions of bacteria Q: What did you learn while working for Chevron Research. My job there
and microorganisms can act like a for Mobil International Oil Company was to investigate problems affecting
“biological glue,” which plays a similar and Chevron Research? petroleum engineering and oil produc-
role to plant roots. Microorganisms When I was working for Mobile Inter­ tion in the field. How did this help me?
have advantages over plants, namely national, I had been previously trained I would say this industrial experience

www.asce.org/geo 25
 Lessons Learned from GeoLegends
did several things: it enhanced my
perspective of real-world problems
outside of academia, and it increased
my maturity and confidence to take on
new challenges.
Q: Which learning strategies do
you favor: focusing on one thing or
learning many different things?
We can know a little bit about
everything, but not a lot about
one thing. This approach tends to
develop superficial knowledge and
understanding. I think one needs to
have a focus or expertise in at least one
specialty area. This focus is important,
but you also should be open to new
areas and ways of thinking about
problems. I would recommend what
I call “an eclectic approach.” An
eclectic approach entails deriving
ideas and solutions from a broad and
diverse range of sources. For example,
It turns out that the mathematical
equations of tablet disintegration in your
stomach and soils in a trench are based
essentially on the same laws of physics.
26 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
an eclectic geotechnical engineer
might be interested in the problem
of slaking in soils. Slaking is a rapid
disintegration that can occur in the
sides of trenches in soils that are
exposed to wet-dry cycles. Slaking also
happens to be a topic of interest to
pharmaceutical researchers who study
the disintegration of tablets in vitro. It
turns out that the mathematical equa-
tions of tablet disintegration in your
stomach and soils in a trench are based
essentially on the same laws of physics.
Accordingly, analytical equations and
solutions developed by pharmaceutical
researchers can also be used to look at
slaking in soils. Additional insights and
understanding of root reinforcement of
soils can be gleaned from studies using
artificial fibers in granular media.
The same principles are at work, but
with different materials. Eclecticism
is realizing the connection between
different fields and capitalizing on the
knowledge gained.
Q: Is there anyone who has had a
significant influence on your career?
My PhD adviser, James Mitchell (a
previous GeoLegend interviewee),
was a significant influence. He was an
instructor of some key courses, as well
as my research supervisor. Professor
Mitchell is very open to new ideas and
concepts of engineering; he explained
them clearly as an instructor and applied
them successfully in practice. He was
definitely an influential mentor. My
other mentor was Professor Harry Seed.
His specialty area was in earthquake
engineering and liquefaction. I enrolled
in a few of his courses; I was very
impressed with his grasp of geotechnics
and his ability to present these concepts
in class with minimal use of notes. I’m
always impressed when someone has a
tremendous ability to speak extempora-
neously, organize all the information in
your head, and present it effectively. He
was a master in this regard.
Q: Today, how important are
graduate studies in geotechnical
engineering?
I think they are essential. Civil
engineering is a very diverse field, and
geotechnical engineering has now added
environmental options. I think the only
way to obtain the depth of knowledge
you need in geotechnical engineering is
to pursue at least a master’s degree to get
the necessary specialization.
Q: Which part of geotechnical
engineering do you think we need to
improve on?
One thing I am disappointed about is the
lack of required earth science courses in
graduate study programs in geotechnical
engineering. I think some knowledge
of geology is necessary in geotechnical
engineering work. Another skill I would
like graduate students to have is sketching
or drawing. When you sketch, you have
the ability to focus on things that you
really want to emphasize, which is
different from photography. In addition,
I’ve noticed that students sometimes
don’t have a good sense about significant
figures. If you have a calculator, you can
run calculations out to ten decimal places.
How significant are all those figures?
There may be one parameter in there that
might only be good to one significant
figure that gets lost. Another problem is
transferring back and forth between the
English and SI systems. Unfortunately,
we are still stuck with the English system,
which is used mainly in the U.S.
Q: What advice would you like to
share with our young engineers?
There are several important things
I’ve gained from my life experience in
geotechnical engineering. One is the
value of good communication skills, or
the ability to speak and write effectively.
I depend on good communications not
only in my technical writing, but also in
Inspecting a vegetated gabion wall.
freelance writing on a variety of subjects.
I can’t over-emphasize the importance
of good communication skills. John
Bachner, who writes in GEOSTRATA as
the GeoCurmudgeon, often discusses
the importance of clarity and good
technical writing.
The second most important thing
is having an eclectic outlook, as pre-
viously discussed. Also, I recommend
that young engineers use the theory of
irreversible thermodynamics to help
understand and explain coupled flow
phenomenon in soils. Electro-osmosis
(in which an electrical gradient is used
in lieu of a hydraulic gradient to dewa-
ter fine-grained soils) is an example of
a coupled flow.
j SUGUANG (SEAN) XIAO, EIT, S.M.ASCE,
is a PhD student at Lehigh University. His
research focuses on thermal mechanical
behaviors of geothermal energy piles. He
is an active member of the G-I Graduate
Student Organization at Lehigh University,
where he serves as the representative
to the G-I Graduate Student Leadership
Committee. He can be contacted at
sux211@lehigh.edu.
j HAI (THOMAS) LIN, EIT, S.M.ASCE,
is a PhD student researching on
microbial modification of soil for ground
improvement. He is an active member of
the G-I Graduate Student Organization at
Lehigh University. He can be contacted at
hal310@lehigh.edu.
j HANNA MOUSSA JABBOUR, S.M.ASCE, is
a master’s student at Lehigh University. His
research focuses on finite element modelling
of installation effect of controlled modulus
columns on surrounding soil. He is an
active member of the G-I Graduate Student
Organization at Lehigh University and can be
contacted at ham413@lehigh.edu.
www.asce.org/geo 27
JAN/FEB MILITARY
2016 GEOTECHNICS

Work crews sounding

the depths of the canal

Canals, Cutoffs, and the

Vicksburg Campaign
How canals and cutoffs were used during the Vicksburg
Campaign of the American Civil War
By Danny W. Harrelson, PG, Mansour Zakikhani, PhD, and Amber L. Tillotson

28 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 North end of the canal
Grant’s Canal at DeSoto Point: Digging the Canal by Hand
D
uring the American Civil War, the term “Union” was
used to refer to the United States of America, and
specifically to the national government and the 20
free states and five border slave states that supported it. The
Union was opposed by 11 southern states that formed the
Confederate States of America, or the “Confederacy.” The
Union’s overall strategy for dealing with the Confederacy at
Vicksburg was developed by then General-in-Chief Winfield
Scott. It emphasized the blockading of ports and an advance
down the Mississippi River to divide the Confederacy in two.
Because the blockade would take time to work, some people
began to compare it to the coils of an anaconda slowly suffo-
cating its victim. The snake image caught on, eventually giving
rise to the popular “Anaconda Plan” name.
The Canals and Cutoffs Strategy
To support the Anaconda Plan, five manmade canals and
cutoffs were constructed between 1862 and 1863 by the Union
forces attempting to bypass the very strong Confederate
defenses at Vicksburg, MS. Vicksburg, known as the “Gibraltar
of the Confederacy,” was the last major Confederate strong-
hold on the Mississippi River in the spring of 1863 (Figure 1).
Because of its location on the loess bluffs overlooking the river,
the city was considered by many Union strategists as unassail-
able. The Confederates realized early in 1862 that they would
have to defend Vicksburg, but their strategists incorrectly
assumed that an attack would come upriver from New Orleans
after its surrender on April 25, 1862. They also mistakenly
believed that shoaling (shallow depths) at the mouth of the
www.asce.org/geo 29
Mississippi River and point bar deposits (sandbars) on the
inside of meander loops would prevent attack by deep draft
gun boats in the Union’s fleet. The error of this strategy became
apparent in December 1862, when the Union’s ironclad “city
class” gunboat, U.S.S. Cairo, was torpedoed and sank on the
Yazoo River while attempting to find a down river attack route.
Because of loess’ ability to take a vertical cut, Vicksburg
commanded the high ground on these bluffs overlooking the
Mississippi River. The loess bluffs were also easy to carve into
defensible positions such as redoubts, redans, and rifle-pits
that made the defense of the city even more formidable. A
combination of loess and the Mississippi River’s meander loop
in front (west) of Vicksburg made frontal attacks potentially
very costly for the Union Army and Navy forces. Vicksburg’s
ability to command the Mississippi River with the use of large
artillery pieces positioned on the bluffs led the Union to recon-
sider a direct assault on Vicksburg. Recognizing this setting,
Major General Ulysses S. Grant was determined to find a way
around Vicksburg via canals or cutoffs or attack Vicksburg from
the rear. Grant’s military engineers incorrectly believed that by
constructing a small pilot channel to divert the river’s energy
through it, much like Brigadier General Thomas Williams’
earlier failed attempt (see “William’s Canal” section), the river
would produce enough scouring to create a manmade cutoff,
diverting the Mississippi River two miles west of Vicksburg.

William’s Canal
The Union’s first major attempt at using navigation canals
as a tactic was to dig a shallow three-mile channel across De
Soto Point, a meander loop on the Mississippi River directly
in front of Vicksburg (Figure 2). Known as William’s Canal after
Brigadier General Thomas Williams, this navigation canal
would enable Union gunboats and troop transports to bypass
the Confederate batteries at Vicksburg. The Union’s engineers
determined that the canal would eventually divert enough
flow from the Mississippi River that a meander cut-off would
develop, divert the entire river several miles to the west of
Vicksburg, and thus eliminate the need for a costly campaign
to take the city. Initial work on the navigation canal was begun
on June 27, 1862, but was suspended a month later on July 24
when, under the cover of the West Gulf Blockading Squadron,
Williams’ forces withdrew downstream because of Confederate
artillery fire from the loess bluffs.
Grant’s Canal
In January 1863, work on William’s Canal was resumed by
troops under the command of Major General Ulysses S. Grant,
and the project then became known as “Grant’s Canal.” Grant
was advised by the Navy that President Lincoln liked the idea
of a canal, so he ordered the expansion to make it a total of
60 ft wide and 7 ft deep. Initially, the canal was hand dug
by a 3,000-man infantry brigade, but progress was slowed
by harassing fire from the Vicksburg bluffs. Construction
Figure 1. Locations of the canals and cutoffs for the Vicksburg
Campaign.
continued into the spring, but on March 5, a rise in the river
caused the cofferdam to collapse and the excavation to flood.
This cofferdam was largely hand dug at the head of the canal
excavation and without the benefit of compaction; it collapsed,
allowing the river to flood the canal and causing it to silt up.
Subsequently, two steam-driven dipper dredges, the Hercules
and the Sampson, were mobilized to clear the silt out of the
canal excavation. Because the dredges were within the range
of Confederate artillery fire from the loess bluffs at Vicksburg,
dredging was soon reduced to just nighttime operations until it
was finally stopped, and the Union withdrew by March 24, 1863.
The Lake Providence Boondoggle
Concurrent with these canal efforts, Grant was examining
alternate, water-based routes by which to bypass Vicksburg.
His engineers determined that the best route would be to first
connect the Mississippi River to Lake Providence, LA. The canal
would then flow through a series of waterways that would con-
nect Lake Providence with the mouth of the Red River, which
would then connect to the Mississippi River 150 miles south
of Vicksburg. In February 1863, he ordered the construction
of this canal, which was to be 100 ft wide and 5 ft deep. The

30 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 Figure 2. Profile of the canal across De Soto Point showing canal excavation elevations.

successful completion of this canal allowed the Union’s “city
class” gunboats to navigate from the Mississippi River through
Bayous Baxter and Macon, into the Tensas and Black rivers, and
ultimately into the Red River, thereby completely bypassing
Vicksburg. However, by late March, Grant’s engineers reported
that although this connection was navigable, it was far too
difficult to move sufficient numbers of gunboats and troop
transports past Vicksburg using this route. Later, this canal was
referred to as the “Lake Providence Boondoggle,” but it was the
only one of Grant’s navigation canal projects that successfully
bypassed the Vicksburg defenses.
support moved into the pass on February 7, but their progress
was slowed by the Confederates, who were obstructing the
river channel with chains and a raft of rocks and trees. These
delays allowed the Confederates to construct a series of forts
near the confluence of the Tallahatchie and Yalobusha Rivers
and repulse the Union’s gunboats on March 11, 14, and 16,
before they completely withdrew by April 14 (Figure 3).
The Steele’s Bayou Expedition
The Steele’s Bayou Expedition was a joint operation of Grant’s

The Yazoo Diversion Canal

Another failed expedition was an attempt to use the “Yazoo
Pass,” an old Yazoo River course that was abandoned in 1856
due to levee construction that isolated a short section of the
river (the Pass) from the Mississippi River (Figure 1). This effort
began February 2, 1863, by using explosives to breach the
Mississippi River levee near Moon Lake, MS, approximately
150 miles north of Vicksburg. Ten Union gunboats with army

Figure 3. Confederate forts constructed in response to the Figure 4. Map of the Confederate raft
Yazoo Pass Expedition. blocking navigation on the Yazoo River.

www.asce.org/geo 31

Walnut Bayou
Figure 5. Map of Duckport Canal connecting the Mississippi River to Walnut Bayou.
Army of the Tennessee and Rear Admiral David D. Porter’s
Mississippi River Squadron. The goal was to move Union
forces from the Mississippi River to a position on the Yazoo
River upstream of the Confederate defenses at Vicksburg. On
March 14, 1863, Admiral Porter began moving toward the
Yazoo River via Steele’s Bayou and Deer Creek, which are
located just north of Vicksburg. This move would outflank
Fort Pemberton and allow for the landing of Union troops
between Vicksburg and Yazoo City. Numerous manmade
and natural obstacles impeded their progress; ultimately, all
gunboats became immobilized and were in imminent danger
of being captured or destroyed by Confederate forces (Figure
4). Sherman sent infantry assistance to repel the Confederates,
but the approach was abandoned as too difficult. Thus, the
Steele Bayou Expedition ended by March 27.
The Duckport Canal
The Union’s second attempt at building a navigation canal
began in April 1863, when Major General Grant ordered his
troops to explore Walnut Bayou. After scouting out a potential
route, Grant ordered a canal be cut at Duckport Landing, LA,
so it would connect with the Mississippi River to Walnut Bayou
(Figure 5). This canal was not an attempt to divert the river, but can be reached at danny.w.harrelson@usace.army.mil.
was designed so that lighter gunboats could navigate through
Walnut Bayou and reenter the Mississippi River 20 miles south
of Vicksburg, thereby creating a passable supply route. Work
on the canal began on April 10, and by April 22, four dredges
and 3,500 workers were involved in the effort. However, by the
end of April 1863, it was apparent that Duckport Canal would
not be completed because the Mississippi River water levels
fell to the point where the dredges could not operate. Water
depth in the canal was less than a foot deep in places, so even
the lighter gunboats using this route ran aground and were
trapped between Duckport and New Carthage.
32 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Learning from History
Today’s geotechnical
engineers have amassed an
incredible amount of knowl-
edge, derived in part from the
lessons we have learned from
past failures like the canal
and cutoff projects outlined
in this article. Today, we are
fully versed in fundamental
potamology and river hydrau-
lics, but in the mid-nineteenth
century, a general lack of these
fundamental principles con-
tributed to the failure of both
the cutoff and canal strategy.
More knowledge concerning
basic river geomorphology
and proper hydraulic configu-
ration of the canals and cutoffs would have helped avoid these
failures. If the shape and orientation of the canal had been
optimized to effectively use the river’s scouring action and
erosive power to deepen the excavation of the canal, the Union
might have succeeded, and the Siege of Vicksburg would have
been avoided. Interestingly, 13 years later, on April 26, 1876,
the Mississippi River flooded across De Soto Point, cutting the
meander loop off and isolating Vicksburg from the Mississippi
River until the Yazoo Diversion Canal was completed in 1903.
In his memoirs, Grant collectively called his canal and
channel efforts “experiments,” realizing that if he had imple-
mented his dredges in January rather than March, there would
have been enough time to widen and deepen the canal before
the spring rise in the river. Further, an earlier introduction of
these dredges would have also allowed time for the rerouting
of the lower (south) end of the canal to put it out of range of
Vicksburg’s Confederate artillery along the loess bluffs.
j DANNY W. HARRELSON, PG, is a research geologist at the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development
Center in Vicksburg, MS. His primary interest is military geology. He
j MANSOUR ZAKIKHANI, PhD, is a research civil engineer at the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development
Center in Vicksburg, MS. His primary interest is ground and surface
water modeling. He can be reached at mansour.zakikhani@usace.
army.mil.
j AMBER L. TILLOTSON is an engineering technician at the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers’ Engineer Research and Development
Center in Vicksburg, MS. Her primary interest is military geology. She
can be reached at amber.l.tillotson@usace.army.mil.
Wick Drains Division

WICK
DRAINS
Your solution for closing
or dewatering fly ash
disposal facilities and
subsurface consolidation

Hayward Baker
Wick Drains Division
303-627-1100 phone
www.HBWickDrains.com

N ORTH AMERIC A’S LEA DER I N GE OT E CHNI CAL CONST RUCT I O N

For a complete list of our offices and techniques, please visit www.HaywardBaker.com
 Figure 3. Tunnels were used to
undermine a ramp in the Persian
siege of Palaepaphos. (Courtesy
Osprey Publishing, Ltd.)
JAN/FEB MILITARY
2016 GEOTECHNICS

34 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

MILITARY
GEOTECHNICS
IN THE ANCIENT
WORLD
By Dimitrios Zekkos, PhD, PE, M.ASCE

GEO-INNOVATING
THE HARD WAY

T
he technical expertise that is now part of geotechnical engineering
was of paramount importance in the ancient world. This is because
before, but also after, the invention of siege equipment, nearly all
available defending or attacking techniques involved the excavation,
transportation, and/or placement of soils or rocks to construct forti-
fication walls and towers, excavate trenches and tunnels, or construct
ramps, levees, and embankments. Although military geotechnics expertise in the
ancient world was purely empirical, numerous case histories demonstrate the defin-
ing role that experienced engineers played in the outcome of military expeditions.
This article highlights some characteristic examples of the role of military geotechnics
in the ancient world.
The excavation, transportation, and placement of earth may seem like a relatively
simple task to geotechnical engineers. However, in the midst of an ancient battle or
siege, when human resource availability was scarce and time restrictions significant,
timely completion of a task could make the difference between a success that could
change the course of history and an embarrassing annihilation. In those days, it
was absolutely necessary to have knowledge of ground conditions, experience with
construction under harsh conditions that included protecting workers from enemy
attacks, and strong project management skills.

Fortifications
Fortifications that involved construction of steep walls and towers were an absolute
requirement for defense. Even more impressive, however, was the ability of ancient
civilizations to rebuild fortifications within very short time periods, sometimes even
overnight. In many cases, construction was undertaken not only by soldiers and
slaves, but also, in critical circumstances, by all habitants, including women, children,
and the elderly.

www.asce.org/geo 35
Ancient civilizations rebuilt fortifications within very short time periods,
sometimes even overnight. In many cases, construction was undertaken
not only by soldiers and slaves, but also, in critical circumstances, by all
habitants, including women, children, and the elderly.
Trenches
Typical defenses in the ancient world also involved the
excavation of deep trenches, with or without water, in front of
the fortifications. In some cases, two or three trenches were
constructed. Trenches had significant military value, as they
adversely impacted the ability of the attacker to transport
troops and supplies in a timely manner at the battlefront, i.e.,
the defender’s fortifications. Trench excavation became the
typical defense for armies that were on a campaign to deter
attacks by enemy cavalry.
Among the earliest descriptions of defensive trenches can be
found in Homer’s Iliad. A good example is the major trench that
the Mycenaeans built during the siege of Troy between about
1260–1180 BC. Homer writes about the trench extensively and
with admiration. The Mycenaeans, in an effort to strengthen
their defense and protect their ships that were stationed along
the coast, constructed a defensive fortification wall and a trench
(Figure 1). Homer describes the trench as deep, wide, and large,
and points out that the Mycenaeans drove large wooden piles
into its sides. During the battle, the horses of the Trojans could
Figure 1. An artistic interpretation
of the Achaean trench.
(Courtesy John Manousakis.)
36 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
not jump over the trench or even cross it because the trench
sides were vertical. The poet explains that the Mycenaeans had
placed very large pointed piles, one next to the other, in a dense
configuration. Although the piles were certainly a second line of
defense, it is not clear whether they were intended to also serve
as support for the vertical excavation in the sandy deposits.
During the battle that followed, the trench failed, allowing the
Trojans to attack. Homer provides details of the failure: the
god Apollo kicked the sides of the trench, which fell into the
bottom, thus allowing the enemy to cross. He also reports that
the length of the failed trench was greater than the distance a
human can throw a spear, hinting to a sizeable failure.
The fortifications of Babylon are generally well known, but
less is known about their defensive trench. Herodotus describes
that the fortifications and the defensive trench of Babylon
were built simultaneously. Fortification walls were built on top
of one side of the trench. The soil from the excavation of the
trench was used to form blocks which were burned in ovens
and then stacked using bitumen mortar. Bitumen was naturally
occurring at a site that was an eight-day trip from Babylon. The
blocks and bitumen were used to build the sides
of the trench and part of the fortification walls. A
woven layer of reeds was introduced every 30 rows
of block to provide reinforcement.
Defensive trenches were extensively used by all
ancient civilizations, but not always successfully.
To bolster its defense against the expanding
Persian Empire, the city of Knidos, located on a
cape of the Asia Minor coast, decided to build a
defensive trench with water and essentially detach
the city from the mainland. The rock subsurface
proved very hard to excavate, and rock chipping
during excavation caused numerous injuries to the
bodies and eyes of the workers. After consulting
with Delphi, the project was abandoned.
In many cases, trenches filled with water, or
canals, were used for defense. Sestrosis, who Figure 2. Remains of the siege ramp at Lachish.
(©Mark A. Wilson, Wikimedia Commons.)
reigned in 1956-1911 BC in Egypt, built extensive
canals using large quantities of soil and rock
that entirely changed the Egyptian landscape.
These canals not only provided water in areas where water
was not previously available, but also acted as a major defense
infrastructure. Herodotus reports that before Sestrosis’ time,
one could cross the entire Egyptian kingdom with horses or
carriage, but after these projects, this was impossible.
Ramps
Attackers also had many geo-techniques at their disposal. The
most common one, especially before the development of siege
equipment, was the construction of ramps to the top of fortifica-
tion walls, allowing the attackers to capture the city. For example,
General Arpagos of the Medeans (in sixth century BC) was known
for using ramps in his conquests. Perhaps one of the most famous
examples of ramps was constructed during the siege of the city
of Lachish by the Assyrians in 701 BC in modern-day Israel.
A preserved part of the ramp is shown in Figure 2. The British
Museum hosts an impressive set of relief carvings that vividly
illustrate soldiers building mudbrick ramps towards the fortifica-
tions, while being defended by other Assyrian soldiers deploying
battering rams. The carvings also show defenders crowded in the
fortifications and shooting arrows and rocks toward the attackers.
Tunnels
Another very common technique used by the attackers during
a siege was the construction of underground tunnels supported
by wooden beams. Once the tunnel reached the location of
the fortifications, the attackers would set them on fire and the
tunnel would collapse, undermining the fortification founda-
tion and leading to the collapse of the fortifications. There are
numerous such historical events.
Hannibal used tunnels in the siege of Himera in Sicily in
409 BC. Earlier, the Persians attempted to use them in the
nine-month siege of Barca in modern day Libya. However, the
defenders were able to locate the tunnels with the following
technique: According to Herodotus, they repeatedly tamped
a copper shield along the perimeter of the fortification walls.
When tunnels were present, the sound from the impact of the
shield echoed. The defenders would then dig their tunnels, find
the Persian tunnel excavators, and kill them. The tunneling
technique was also successful against the Cypriot city of Soloi
that was conquered after a four-month siege, the great city of
Militos in ancient Asia Minor, and many other cities. In the
siege of Palaepaphos by the Persians, the defenders constructed
five tunnels in an effort to undermine the attacker’s ramp
(Figure 3). These tunnels had a height of 1.7-2.3 m and a width
of 1.1-1.7 m.
Polyaenus reports that in Calhedon, the Persians
excavated an approximately 2.5-km-long tunnel beneath
the city. When the excavators found roots of olive trees, they
realized that they had reached the main market at the center
of the city, and at night, the army came out of the tunnel and
conquered the city from inside. In 318 BC, the Macedonians,
in the siege of Megalopolis, were able to construct tunnels
and take down the city’s three largest towers, as well as the
walls in between. An attack followed at the point of breach,
but the defenders repelled them, while at the same time, by
working day and night, they were able to build new walls
behind the collapsed ones.
In 305 BC, during the famous siege of Rhodes by Dimitrios
the First of Macedonia, in addition to battles at sea and on
land, extensive battles took place inside tunnels excavated by
attackers and defenders. Not able to dominate underground,
Dimitrios tried, unsuccessfully, to bribe one of the defending
military officers. Throughout history, there are numerous, sim-
ilar, successful or unsuccessful bribing attempts of the military
officers responsible for the underground operations.
www.asce.org/geo 37

When the Spartans sieged the
city of Mantineia in around 385
BC, and all other attempts to
capture the city had failed, they
waited for the winter rains. When
the water level rose in the nearby
river, they built levees to guide the
water toward the city. Faced with
severe flooding, the Mantineians
surrendered.
When the Romans tried to conquer the Ambracians in 190
BC, they excavated a tunnel, but the Ambracians saw the piles of
excavated material and realized that tunneling operations were
underway. To locate the tunnel, they excavated a trench at an
angle to what they assumed was the axis of the Roman tunnel.
Then they placed an array of copper tools that vibrated at the
location where excavation was taking place. The Ambracians
then filled the tunnel with smoke — a truly innovative technique
that forced the Romans to abandon their effort.
Philip the Fifth of Macedonia, during the siege of Prinassos,
was unable to excavate a tunnel due to the very hard rock
conditions. Faced with failure, according to Greek historian
Polybius, “Philip ordered his soldiers during the cover of night
to collect earth from elsewhere and throw it all down at the
fake tunnel’s entrance, making it look like the Macedonians
were almost finished completing the tunnels. Eventually, when
Philip V announced that large parts of the town walls were
undermined, the citizens surrendered without delay.”
Levees and Embankments
In ancient times, defenders or attackers seemed eager to build
or destroy levees and embankments to flood the enemy city
or camp. For example, when the Spartans sieged the city of
Mantineia in around 385 BC, and all other attempts to capture
the city had failed, they waited for the winter rains. When the
water level rose in the nearby river, they built levees to guide
38 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
the water toward the city. Faced with severe flooding, the
Mantineians surrendered. In 318 BC, a levee failure in the river
Euphrates, possibly triggered by the enemy, nearly resulted
in the annihilation of Eumenis’ army. However, his men were
spared by reaching high ground on an embankment and were
only able to continue the expedition once the course of the river
was redirected. On another occasion, in 460 BC, the Athenian
navy was stationed in the island Prosopitis in the Nile Delta as
part of a military campaign against the Persian Empire. The
Persians redirected the river — and suddenly the Athenian
ships were stranded on dry land! The Athenians had to burn
down all their ships so that they would not fall into the enemy’s
hands, and then they continued their campaign by land.
Natural Disasters
As odd as it may seem, natural disasters, such as floods,
landslides, and earthquakes, have played a significant role
in ancient warfare. Earthquakes especially shaped history in
these times. For example, many historians believe that the
earthquake of 464 BC, which completely devastated Sparta and
resulted in a revolution of their serfs (Helots), was the beginning
of the Athenian-Spartan rivalry that led to the Peloponnesian
War. Earthquakes also affected the outcome of battles, such as
in 426 BC, during the Peloponnesian War, when the Spartan
army was stationed in Corinth ready to invade Athens. The
occurrence of numerous earthquakes in the area was consid-
ered a bad sign from the gods, and the expedition was aborted.
Earthquakes also caused dramatic changes in the balance of
power: Professor Harry Seed, in his Terzaghi lecture paper,
refers to Helike, the ancient Greek city that was completely
destroyed and submerged, most likely due to liquefaction
and lateral spreading following the earthquake of 373 BC. Just
before the earthquake, Helike was an emerging power that was
expected to play an influential role in the region. Within a day,
the entire city and all of its citizens had disappeared.
Military Geo-innovation
A geotechnical engineer must have been an asset for military
commanders in the ancient world. Lives of soldiers and citizens
often depended on employing innovative geo-solutions that
would lead to victory. The actions of our forefathers in these
battles were recorded by historians and geographers and have
propagated throughout the centuries. Many of these innova-
tions were also immortalized in military guides written from the
ancient times up to the 20th century. Although purely empirical
and typically without a robust scientific understanding of the
principles, “ancient geotechnical military engineers” were true
innovators.
j DIMITRIOS ZEKKOS, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, is an associate professor at
the University of Michigan and managing director of Geoengineer.org.
His passion for history has been growing in tandem with his passion for
geotechnics. He can be reached at zekkos@geoengineer.org.
 MM
ODEL 6100
ODEL DD
6100 DIGITAL INCLINOMETER
DIGITAL PROBE
INCLINOMETER PROBE
MODEL 6100D DIGITAL INCLINOMETER PROBE

TheThe
Model
Model6100D Digital
6100D Inclinometer
Digital Inclinometer

new
new
The Model 6100D Digital anInclinometer

new
Probe now incorporates
Probe now incorporates an integral
integral
Probe now incorporates an integral
3-Axis
3-AxisDigital Compass,
Digital Compass, which
whichallows
allows
3-Axis Digital Compass, which allows
spiral surveys to be made using the same
spiral surveys to be made using the same
spiral surveys to be made using the same
probe.
probe.
probe.
ModelModelFPC-1FPC-1
Model FPC-1
The The
The surveys
surveys
surveys obtained
obtained
obtained can bebebe
can
can used
used
used toto to
DigitalDigital
Field Field
Handheld
Digital Field
PC PC
Handheld
correct
correctthe inclinometer
the inclinometerdata sets
data for
sets
correct the inclinometer data sets for any any
for any
Handheld PC
twist (or(or
twist
twist spiraling)
(or that
spiraling)
spiraling) may
that
that bebepresent
may
may be inin in
present
present
thethe
installed
the installedinclinometer
inclinometercasings.
casings.
installed inclinometer casings.

TheThespiral
The spiralsurvey
spiral data
survey
survey isispresented
data
data ispresented
presented on,
on,on,
and stored
and stored
and in, the
storedin,in,thesame
thesame rugged,
samerugged, easy-
rugged,easy-
easy-
to-use
to-usehandheld
to-use handheld
handheld Field PCPCPC
Field
Field used for
used
used taking
forfor taking
taking
Model 6100D
Model
Model 6100D
6100D inclinometer
inclinometer
inclinometer readings.
readings.
readings.
Digital Inclinometer
Digital
Digital Inclinometer
Inclinometer
ProbeProbe
Probe
ForFor
more
For information,
more
more please
information, please
information, visit:
visit:
please visit:
www.geokon.com/GK-604D
www.geokon.com/GK-604D
www.geokon.com/GK-604D

INNOVATION
INNOVATION
INNOVATION ANDQUALITY
AND QUALITY SINCE
QUALITYSINCE 1979
SINCE1979
1979
In
InIn GeotechnicalInstrumentation
Geotechnical
Geotechnical Instrumentation
Instrumentation

S
SITE MM
SITE
ITEM ASTER
ASTER
ASTER
IINCLINOMETER
INCLINOMETER SSOFTWARE
NCLINOMETER SOFTWARE
OFTWARE

SiteMaster is a comprehensive inclinometer

SiteMaster is ais comprehensive
SiteMaster a comprehensiveinclinometer
inclinometer
package used for processing and managing
package
packageused for for
used processing andand
processing managing
managing
inclinometer data.
inclinometer data.
inclinometer data.
SiteMaster works with any inclinometer system
SiteMaster
SiteMaster
which
works
produces
with
works
a text
any
with inclinometer
any
data inclinometer
file.
system
system
Data are stored
which produces
which producesa texta data
text fi
data le. Data
fi le.
systematically in an easy to modify folder, with are
Data stored
are stored
systematically
systematicallyin anin easy
an to
easy modify
to
corresponding displacement graphs organizedmodifyfolder, with
folder, with
corresponding
incorresponding
a simple and displacement
displacement
effi cient manner. graphsgraphsorganized
organized
in ainsimple andand
a simple efficient manner.
efficient manner.
SiteMaster also features a reporting tool
SiteMaster
SiteMaster
allowing alsoalso
reports features
to features
be quickly a reporting
agenerated
reporting tool
andtool
allowing
exported reports
allowing PDFtoor be
inreports quickly
to be
MS Word quickly generated
format. generated andand
exported in PDF
exported or MS
in PDF Word
or MS Word format.format.

For more information, please visit:

For www.geokon.com/SiteMaster
more
For information,
more please
information, visit:visit:
please
www.geokon.com/SiteMaster
www.geokon.com/SiteMaster

1 • 603 • 448 •1562 Geokon is

info geokon.com
@•• ISO 9001:2008
1 • 6031 •• 603
448 448 •1562 Geokon
1562
www.geokon.com
is is
Geokon
registered
info@ geokon.com
info@geokon.com ISO 9001:2008
ISO 9001:2008
www.geokon.com registered
www.geokon.com registered
JAN/FEB MILITARY
2016 GEOTECHNICS

Finding an alternative to the

nuclear density gauge

CRACKINGthe
NUCLEAR CODE
By Ernest S. Berney, IV, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, and Mariely Mejias-Santiago, PE

40 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

T
wo of the most basic quality control tests made
in the field during soil construction are the soil’s
moisture content and density. The establishment of
a uniform procedure to compare the performance
of soil based on moisture and density began with
E.E. Proctor in the early 1930s during highway
construction in California. He found that, by simply
measuring these two properties, he could determine if a soil
was too dry, too wet, or too loose to perform at its peak capacity
for load bearing. Later research showed that knowledge of just
these two physical properties can provide further insight into
the soil’s stability, strength, and fabric, allowing prediction of its
future behavior under changes in load and environment. Even
better, in practice, determining these two physical properties
in the field has become one of the simplest tests to conduct,
thanks to one unique device: the nuclear density gauge.
Until the 1950s, measuring soil moisture content and
density required cumbersome equipment and a good deal of
time, often causing construction delays. Density of the soil was
determined from the sand cone test, which involves digging
a hole of a prescribed diameter, weighing the soil, and then
determining the volume of the hole by filling it with calibrated
sand. Moisture content is typically measured by oven drying.
This test method is prescribed in ASTM D1556-15 “Standard
Test Method for Density and Unit Weight of Soil in Place by
Sand-Cone Method.”

Game-Changing Technology
After years of dealing with inefficient means of measuring
density and moisture content, the nuclear race of the 1950s
gave rise to a new application of radioactive materials. It was
discovered that the density and moisture content of a volume
of soil could be accurately determined by measuring the return
of gamma radiation emitted from a Cesium source, which is
blocked by the solid mass, and neutron radiation emitted from
an Americium source, which is blocked by the hydrogen within
the water.
The nuclear density gauge (NDG) (Figure 1) allows users,
with nominal calibration, to obtain the soil’s density and
moisture content through a rod inserted up to 12 in. deep into
the ground. This rapid data acquisition revolutionized the
pace of construction by providing real-time evaluation of soil
conditions and enabling engineers and operators to promptly
correct field compaction deficiencies before they became a
problem. The NDG proved to be nearly as accurate as the sand

Construction of a 1,250-m-long dirt runway by joint U.S.-

Australian military forces using non-nuclear moisture/density
control methods as part of the ERDC Joint Rapid Airfield
Construction demonstration. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center [ERDC].)

www.asce.org/geo 41
cone, which built confidence in its use. However, with such
speed and accuracy came the risk of radiation exposure.
NDG’s are now a staple of most geotechnical firms, but
their use in the U.S. must follow strict Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) guidelines for operation and storage.
Even though substantial shielding is placed around the
radioactive sources embedded in the rod, some radiation
is allowed to escape; thus, the gauge operator must wear a
radiation badge showing the accumulated rems (röntgen
equivalent, man) absorbed over a lifetime. The gauge must
be managed by a radiation safety officer and triple locked
in a special impact-proof container when not in use. The
safety officer must complete a 40-hour course on managing
the gauge, and each user must be trained and certified in
its operation every three years. Further, a disposal fee is
charged upon removal from an owner’s inventory. All these
regulations boil down to a continual maintenance cost over
the life of a gauge and a restricted set of personnel that can
operate the device. In the military arena, this becomes a
recipe for disaster.
During the Cold War period, military strategy was based
on the idea that the U.S. would amass a large operating force
deployed from a few large, permanent bases. However, in
our current era of guerilla warfare, terrorism, and long-range
missiles, today’s military has realized that permanent basing
and centralized assets are dangerous and inefficient. The
modern military is transforming itself into a nimble and
quick force using technologies that enable rapid entry and
extraction from any point on the globe. To achieve this, we
must have smaller overall forces, meaning more diverse
training with fewer personnel, material, and logistics.
For today’s military requirements, the NDG is simply not
a practical tool. Keeping a team deployed that is badged,
trained, and has a security officer in the unit is almost
impossible. The Air Force, which provides primary transport
of U.S. forces abroad, is skittish about transporting the NDG
for fear of compromising its aircraft. Rapid deployment and
extraction requires rapid construction. If the military cannot
get a NDG where it’s immediately needed, and if the sand
cone test is too slow or impractical, what are they to do?
Many times they continue with no tools at all, and the risk
can be great.
Alternatives to NDGs
Beginning in 2010, the Air Force and Army, working with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), began a concerted
effort to find an alternative to the NDG that minimized logis-
tical problems while maintaining accuracy. This compromise
is quite a challenge because, in the past 60 years, the NDG
has essentially become the reference standard in the field.
Replacing the reference standard is not a simple task. It
was not until the late 1990s that any new technology even
attempted to compete with the NDG.
42 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Until the 1950s, measuring
soil moisture content and
density required cumbersome
equipment and a good
deal of time, often causing
construction delays.
In 2010, the USACE’s Engineer Research and
Development Center (ERDC) embarked on a study of a
broad range of techniques to determine density. These are
categorized into three basic procedures: volume replacement
like the sand cone; modulus/impact, which correlates soil
modulus/strength to density; and electronic gauges that
use frequency response in the soil to estimate density and
moisture. Interestingly, the ERDC study coincided with other
large-scale instrumentation comparisons being conducted
in academia that looked at many of the same devices. This
suggests two things: 1) the industry feels burdened enough
by NDG regulations to seek out new technology, and 2)
those in the industry feel that technology advancements
should have produced an alternative by now. Unfortunately,
replacing the NDG will not be a simple task. Some of the
ideas considered included the following:
Volume replacement. Volume replacement techniques
involve filling an excavated hole with a volume of material of
known density, namely sand or water. These include the:
oo Sand cone
oo Water balloon technique, which uses water pressurized
into a membrane that stretches to fill the volume of the
hole
oo ERDC-developed, steel shot replacement technique, which
uses stainless steel balls that settle into a uniform density
when poured in the hole (Figure 2)
Modulus/impact. Portable, modulus-based devices consist of
a rod with a sliding hammer that excites the ground surface
upon impact using an accelerometer and a geophone to
capture wave propagation in the soil. There are two primary
manufacturers of this device for soil: Dyna-Test and Zorn,
both of which are modifications of the popular falling weight
deflectometer (FWD) device used to test pavements. While

using heavy impact loads on pavements with multiple geo-
phones provides good response, using a smaller, portable,
lighter mass with a single geophone to test soil introduces
considerable error. Another device, the GeoGauge, imparts a
dynamic shearing action at the surface and records the wave
propagation to determine surface modulus. Impact devices
such as the dynamic cone penetrometer (DCP) and the Clegg
hammer measure a resistance that has been correlated to
strength parameters (Figure 3). Still, today, manufacturers
and researchers continue seeking ways to correlate the
modulus/impact resistance from these techniques to a
known density.
Electronic. Electronic gauges interest the military because
of their similarity to the NDG. There are three electronic
gauges which correlate either electrical impedance or
resistance through the soil to measure density and moisture
content: the Humboldt Electronic Density Gauge (EDG), the
Transtech Soil Density Gauge (SDG), and the Durham-Geo
Moisture + Density Indicator (M+DI) (Figure 4). The EDG
and M+DI were developed using time-domain reflectometry,
measuring the response of electrical signals passing through
the soil from a source to a receiver to depths of 4 to 8 in. The
SDG utilizes impedance spectroscopy to send high frequency
Figure 1. Nuclear density gauge.
(Photo courtesy of ERDC.)
signals into the soil from the center of the device, recording
their response at its outer edge to a 3 to 4 in. depth of
influence. Because of the correlation aspect, all these devices
require a unique, device-specific calibration that corrects the
readings of the device to the specific soil being tested. Thus a
volume replacement type test must also be performed until
confidence in the readings is established.
USACE-ERDC Studies
In response to manufacturers’ claims that new, modern
technologies could replace the NDG, the ERDC began testing
all these devices across varying soil types and moisture/
density regimes. The goal of the test program was to see
how these devices would perform when used by a soldier
because, if extensive calibration or data interpretation was
required, the device would be unusable. Soldiers require
such a diverse range of training that any particular technol-
ogy cannot be overly complicated.
During the test program, the traditional sand cone test
worked effectively, as expected. However, limitations were
found that restrict its applicability to military construction.
It requires 30 minutes or more to conduct, not including
determination of moisture content, and requires a fresh
source of sand. It is limited to soils with a particle diameter
www.asce.org/geo 43
of under 1 in., and it’s difficult to conduct the test in cohe-
sionless materials like desert sand or loose alluvium. The
water balloon apparatus was found to be difficult to hold in
place during testing. In soft soils it caused expansion of the
soil cavity from the applied pressure, resulting in a smaller
density, and in very coarse soils, the membrane would often
burst prior to measurement, destroying both the test and the
test hole location (by saturation). The steel shot technique
proved efficient, but far less accurate than the sand cone.
Given these results, it was determined that improvements on
the volume replacement methods would be required before
use during military construction.
Currently, there is a strong push from industry to
apply modulus-based methods for quality control of soils;
however, determining soil modulus with varying ground
conditions and correlating it to density is quite challenging.
Studies of the modulus-based devices have found little
correlation between modulus and dry density, primarily due
to the effect of moisture content. A wide range of moduli
values may result solely from varying moisture contents
across a test site, regardless of density. Further, it’s unclear
what depth of influence is actually being measured, unlike
the sand cone or NDG, where depth is controlled. Because
the impact devices (Clegg hammer and DCP) are also

Figure 2. Volume replacement devices — steel shot, sand cone, and water balloon apparatus. (Photo courtesy of ERDC.)

Figure 3. Modulus gauges — Dyna-Test Portable FWD, Zorn Portable PWFD, GeoGauge, and DCP. (Photo courtesy of ERDC.)

44 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

strongly influenced by moisture content, they offer little
correlation with the NDG and will ultimately require their
own testing protocol if they are to be incorporated in a
strength/modulus-based design criteria.
For the EDG and M+DI electrical devices to work properly,
an extensive set of compaction tests must be conducted in
the laboratory to bound the region of interest. The ERDC
experimented with a three-point field calibration, using the
sand cone at various conditions during initial construction,
and found that a suitable calibration could be obtained.
Once calibrated, these devices are fairly accurate in their
assessment of the soil until the soil properties change,
rendering the calibration moot. The SDG requires only a
single point calibration for both moisture and density with a
sand cone. At the gauge’s operational frequency, it captures
moisture very accurately, but is unable to distinguish small
density changes during compaction operations. Without
calibration, all these gauges return results that have little
value to the operator, making them only useful for long-term
construction activities. Even at optimum conditions, these
devices still return density values that differ 5 to 10 percent
or more from the NDG.
Circling Back to Nuclear?
The search for a replacement gauge now has gone full circle,
back to using radiation. Troxler has introduced the eGauge, a
hybridization of an electronic moisture gauge and a low-source
nuclear density gauge (Figure 5). The eGauge looks, acts, and
measures density almost identical to the NDG, but uses a
Cesium source that’s below the NRC-mandated level, which
puts it in a class of nuclear devices such as a smoke detector,
requiring no labeling, badging, or security. The Americium
source has been replaced by an electrical conductivity sensor
similar to that employed in a standard cone penetrometer
apparatus. ERDC found this electrical probe to measure
moisture nearly as accurate as the electronic gauges without
requiring calibration, and as accurate when calibrated.
There are several reasons why the eGauge may be a good
solution for the military, including its simple, accurate oper-
ation without calibration, fewer limitations as established
by the NRC, and the ability to safely transport it where
needed. However, the military is notorious for its deliberate
and time-consuming adoption of new technology, so the
advantages of a device such as the eGauge might not be
realized for years.

RECENT PROJECTS
FPL Compressor Site
Ardaman Associates – Fort Lauderdale, FL

Wyoming Valley Motors

Geo-Science Engineering Company – Wilkes-Barre, PA

FedEx Ground
Arehna Engineering – St. Petersburg, FL

Sagamore Whiskey Distillery

Geo-Technology Associates, Inc. – Baltimore, MD

Merrill Field
Hattenburg Dilley & Linnell – Anchorage, AK

www.asce.org/geo 45
Figure 4. Electronic density gauges — SDG, M+DI, and EDG. (Photo courtesy of ERDC.)
Figure 5. DG vs. eGauge and installation of eGauge Moisture Probe. (Courtesy of U.S. Army Corps ERDC.)
The Search Continues…
The quest continues for a replacement for the NDG that
is simple, quick to use, and easy to calibrate, while being
light and portable. However, one must question the value
of continuing this search. If density is really such a difficult
property to obtain through alternative means, what if we
focus on redefining how we assess soils as simply being
moisture- and modulus-dependent? Remember, when these
two properties are combined, the state of the soil can be
assessed.
The military is well-versed in the use of the DCP for quick
assessment of airfield capacity, roadway mobility, soil struc-
ture, and subsurface soil profiles. Because new technology
is slow to be adopted, generating new criteria that makes
use of existing tools can provide a faster means to solve the
problem of quality control. This is not a simple problem;
after all, in 60 years, no one has cracked the nuclear gauge
code. It will be interesting to see what new technologies will
46 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
emerge in the future that can determine soil compaction
without harming the user or the environment.
j ERNEST S. BERNEY, IV, PHD, PE, M.ASCE, is a research civil
engineer at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center, Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, located in
Vicksburg, MS. He performs research on near surface soil behavior
for contingency scenarios and remote sensing and can be reached
at ernest.s.berney.iv@usace.army.mil.
j MARIELY MEJIAS-SANTIAGO, PE, is a research civil engineer
at the U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory, located in Vicksburg, MS.
She performs research on novel pavement and repair technologies
and can be reached at mariely.mejias@usace.army.mil.
 CALL
FOR
PAPERS
The Geo-Institute Chapter of the Colorado Section of the American
Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Rocky Mountain Section of the
Association of Environmental & Engineering Geologists (AEG), and
the Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers (CAGE) have IMPORTANT
hosted the Geo-Conference since 1984. This conference focuses on
geotechnical projects in Colorado and the Rocky Mountain Region,
DATES
and is a one-day opportunity for geo-professionals to share Abstract due
experiences and state of the practice with their colleagues. January 25, 2016
Author Acceptance
Notification
February 22, 2016
Draft Papers for
Potential Topics include Review due
• Transportation April 25, 2016
• Aging and Rehabilitation of Infrastructure
• Water Resources Review Comments
• Innovations in Geotechnical Engineering Delivered to
• Environment
Authors
• Mining and Energy
June 3, 2016
• Natural Hazards, Disasters and Recovery Final Papers due
• Geotechnical Risk and Reliability July 1, 2016
• Investigation and Testing
• Instrumentation and Monitoring
• Case Histories

Submission Instructions
Please email your abstract as text within the body of the email to Jere EVENT
Strickland at jstrickland@martineztesting.com by 5:00 PM Mountain Time on INFORMATION
January 25, 2016. With the abstract, please indicate your name, your role in the
subject matter, your daytime telephone number, and your return email Rocky Mountain
address. This abstract is for informal Steering Committee review, not for Geo-Conference
publication. November 4, 2016
Marriott Denver
Papers accepted for the 2016 Rocky Mountain Geo-Conference will
West Hotel
be published by ASCE as a Geotechnical Practice Publication (GPP)
and distributed at the conference. Lakewood, CO
 JAN/FEB MILITARY Developing a Soil Classification System
2016 GEOTECHNICS
for International Engineering Projects

Translating the
Language of Soils
By Jeb S. Tingle, PE, Shelley L. Tingle, and Danny W. Harrelson, PG

United States Air Force C-17 landing on a natural surface runway. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Army ERDC.)

48 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

S
oil classification systems are used to help predict
soil behavior and provide information to farmers,
engineers, builders, agricultural extension agents,
homeowners, community planners, and government
agencies. Engineers use soil classification systems to char-
acterize soils, determine potential behavior, and understand
limitations of the soils encountered in construction projects.
This knowledge is critical when designing airfields, roads,
buildings, dams, bridges, and other infrastructure.
The U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development
Center (ERDC) is an organization that depends on accurate
soil classification because it supports U.S. military opera-
tions around the globe. Because the ERDC often collaborates
with other nations as partners to accomplish specific
missions, these international joint operations often rely on
data from a wide variety of sources, including soils informa-
tion from a number of different soil classification systems.
Currently, there is no common language in soil classification;
however, a process for relating soils information from
different classification systems to support a specific mission
is very much needed.
In 1959, renowned soils scientist G. Manil said, “The
best system of classification will never be able to give all of
the information necessary for all practical purposes.” This
observation remains true today. Therefore, it’s necessary to
develop correlations between different soil classification
systems and establish general guidance on critical material
properties for engineers and planners. Providing a mapping
tool to easily translate between soil classification systems
will enhance communication during international efforts.
Because of the variety of soil classifications, developing
correlations requires a detailed understanding of soil
descriptions, class limits, and applications.
Current Classification Systems
There are several soil classification systems in use in the
www.asce.org/geo 49
U.S. today. The Airfield Classification
System (ACS) was developed by Arthur
Casagrande, a U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers consultant, for the design
of U.S. airfields during World War II.
The ACS is based on the grain-size
distribution and consistency of cohe-
sive soil particles. A modified version
of the original ACS is the Unified Soil
Classification System (USCS), which
can be applied to most unconsolidated
soils and is represented by a two-letter
symbol, based on the gradation and
plasticity characteristics of the soils.
The USCS is the current soil classifica-
tion system used by the ERDC and the
U.S. Department of Defense. Figure 1
shows a washed sieve analysis being
conducted on a coarse-grained soil to
characterize the material in terms of
grain-size. Figure 2 depicts the liquid
limit test being conducted on the
fine-grained fraction of a soil to char-
acterize the consistency and behavior
of the material. A third system, called
the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials
(AASHTO) Classification System, was
developed by Hogentogler and Terzaghi
in 1928 and is used as a guide for soil
classification in the U.S. for highway
construction purposes.
Internationally, the British Soil
Classification System (BSCS) is
based on particle size and is another
modification of the original ACS.
Germany uses the DIN 18196 soil
classification system, which is similar
to USCS. However, the French Soil
Classification System focuses on the
processes occurring in the soil, such as
the source of deposition, agricultural
characteristics, and drainage behavior.
Most recently, many European
countries have adopted the use of the
European Standard EN ISO 14688-2,
which differs considerably from USCS
in terms of the grain sizes used to
differentiate between soil classes and
the characterization of the plastic
behavior. Many other countries in
South America, Africa, and Asia employ
current U.S. or European (e.g., USCS)
classification systems intact or with
slight modifications, based on the
historical presence of the U.S. and
European countries.
Each of these soil classification
systems seeks to group soils based
upon their typical particle sizes and
their behavioral characteristics. While
similar in purpose and, in some cases,
methodology, the soil groupings differ
between systems and are difficult to
relate to one another.
Translating Soils
Recognizing the need to integrate
many diverse classification systems,
ERDC has developed a correlation
table to relate soils information from
different international soil classification

Table 1. Soil classification system matrix.

TYPICAL COMPACTED
TYPICAL DESIGN VALUES
BRITISH SOIL ESCS PROPOSED DRY DENSITY
GERMAN TYPICAL OMC
USCS CLASSIFICATION EN ISO FRANCE AASHTO USCS
DIN 18196 RANGE, %
SYSTEM 14688-2 GROUPINGS 'k' Value Foundation Value R
CBR, % Mg/m3
(MN/m2/m) Non-Frost

GW GW GW GrW D1, D2 A-1-a

GP GP, GPg GE, GI GrP, GrM D1, D2 A-1-a

I. GC-GW Good to
20-80 88-199 1.7-2.3 3-11
GML, GMI, GMH, siGrW, siGrP, C1, C2, C3, A-1-B, A-2-4, (Gravel) Excellent
GM GU
GMV, GME siGrM B5 A-2-5, A-2-7
GCL, GCI, GCH, clGrW, clGrP, C1, C2, C3,
GC GT A-2-6, A-2-7
GCV, GCE clGrM B6
D1, D2, B1,
SW GW, SW GE, GI, SW SaW a-1-B
B2, B3, B4
D1, D2, B1,
SP SP, SPg SE, SI SAM, SaP A-3, A-1-b
B2, B3, B4

GML, GMI, GMH,

siSaW, siSaP, B1, B2, B3, A-1-B, A-2-4,
SM GMV, GME, SML, SU* II. ML-SW (Silt- N
siSaM B4, B5, B6 A-2-5, A-2-7 3-40 24-114 1.50-2.0 5.8-20 Fair to Good
SMI, SMH, SMV, SME Sand)

GCL, GCI, GCH,

clSaW, clSaP, B1, B2, B3,
SC GCV, GCE, SCL, SCI, ST A-2-6, A-2-7
clSaM B4, B5, B6
SCH, SCV, SCE

ML ML, MI UL SiL, SiI A1 A-4, A-5

CL ML, CL, CL-ML TL, ST ClL, ClI A2 A-6, A-7-6

Very Poor
III. CH-CL (Clay) 2-10 16-53 1.40-1.70 12-30 N
to Poor
CH MV, ME, CH, CV, CE TM ClH A3, A4 A-7-6

MH MV, ME UM SiH A3, A4 A-7-5, A-5

IV. Pt-OH-MH
(Organic
PT PT HN, HZ Or F A-5 and Over- Varies Varies 0.48-0.90 - Not Suitable N
Consolidated
Soils)
OH PT HN, HZ Or F A-5

USCSed
*Unifi - Unified Soil Classification
Soil Classication System
System (USCS). The coarse-grained soils are subdivided into gravels and gravelly soils (G) and sands and sandy soils (S). The gravels have a greater percentage of the coar
ESCS
on the-No.
European Soilthe
4 sieve, and Classification System
sands have the greater portion passing the No. 4 sieve. Both the gravel (G) and the sand (S) groups are divided into four secondary groups, GW and SW, GP and SP, GM a
AASHTO
and nature-of
American
fine in theAssociation of State
soils. Well-graded (W)Highway
soils haveand Transportation
a good representationOfficials
of all particle sizes whereas the poorly graded (P) soils are either uniform or skip- or gap-graded.
**European Soil Classifiction System (ESCS) established in 2008 and adopted by 34 European Countries.
***American Asssociation of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).

50 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 systems (Table 1). As shown in the
table, individual soil types often do not
directly translate from one classifica-
tion system to another. For instance, a
soil classified using the USCS system
may be classified as two or more
different soil types in another soil
classification system, depending upon
the exact particle size and behavioral
characteristics of the material. However,
the soil classification system matrix
allows engineers and planners to relate
a specific soil type to a narrow range of
soil types in another system; therefore,
general information about project site
conditions and soil behavior can be
assessed early in a project cycle. This
information is often used to evaluate
the suitability of a specific site for a
particular project or mission and to
develop requirements for a detailed
geotechnical investigation. To date,
Asian soil classification systems have
not been incorporated into the unified
international soil classification system
matrix, due to the difficulty of relating
the Asian systems to U.S. and European
systems. These systems will be included
in future matrix development.
Typical Soil Properties
In addition to relating soil types from
different soil classification systems
to one another, the soil classification
system matrix provides typical soil
properties for those soil types, or bands
of soil types, as well as some general
guidance for the suitability of those
materials for different applications
commonly undertaken by military
engineers and planners. For military
engineers, specific soil properties of
interest include soil strength, density,
and moisture content. This informa-
tion is used by engineers to assess
the suitability of a particular soil,
either in situ or as a borrow material,
for an engineering function. If a
project requires a soil with a particular
strength, Table 1 can be used to quickly
gauge whether a soil may be suitable
for that project based upon its typical
range of strength values, such as the
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) or the
modulus of subgrade reaction (k). Once
soils are deemed suitable for a particu-
lar project, construction specifications
are typically related in terms of density
and optimum moisture content (OMC),
because these properties are more eas-
ily measured in the field during quality
control testing than strength properties.
Table 1 also includes typical values
for soil density and moisture content
that can be used as planning factors
for specification development and
construction. This type of information
is particularly useful during expedi-
tionary operations, when time may
not be available to perform detailed
laboratory testing on the subject soils
before the start of a mission.

Figure 1. Washed sieve analysis of crushed limestone course-grained soil.

(Photo courtesy of U.S. Army ERDC.)
GENERAL SOIL SUITABILITY

alue Road Base Potential Frost Shrink-Swell Drainage

Coarse Action Potential Characteristics

Practically
Poor to Medium to Slight to Almost
Impervious to
Good Almost None None
Excellent

Practically
Not Suitable Medium to Medium to High
d Impervious to
to Poor Almost None to Almost None
Excellent

Medium to Practically
High to Medium
Not Suitable Medium to Impervious to
to High
Very High Poor

e Not Suitable Slight Very Poor to Fair

of the coarse fraction (particle larger than 4.75 mm diameter) retained

d SP, GM and SM, GC and SC, depending on the grain size distribution

www.asce.org/geo 51
Soil Suitability for
Engineer Missions
Often, military operations are planned
and conducted at an accelerated pace
to meet operational requirements. This
can mean that decisions regarding
the suitability of a project site and soil
suitability for a function within a project
are made expeditiously with minimal
information. The soil classification
system matrix shown in Table 1 includes
some general guidance regarding the
suitability of different soil types for
different road and airfield missions.
Engineers and planners can use the
general guidance provided in Table 1 to
assess whether a site or particular soil
is suitable for use as a foundation in a
non-frost environment or as a road base
course material. The table also indicates
whether the soil might be susceptible
to frost action, shrink-swell behavior, or
drainage problems. These general com-
parisons allow planners and engineers
to compare potential site locations or
borrow soils for a particular mission,
narrowing the focus for detailed site
investigations. The soil suitability
information is not intended to replace a
detailed site investigation, but the data
can be used to eliminate alternatives
and focus the detailed investigation,
thus saving time and resources.
Figure 2. Liquid limit testing of the fine-grained fraction of a soil.
(Photo courtesy of U.S. Army ERDC.)
52 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Breakthroughs on the Horizon
In today’s global operational environ­
ment, military engineers and planners
are forced to rapidly develop and
execute construction projects as part
of a multinational force with very
limited information resources. For a
specific mission location, historical
soils information or preliminary site
assessment data may be provided in
the form of many different soil classifi-
cation systems. Engineers and planners
have struggled with the inability to
relate disparate soil information from
unfamiliar soil classification systems to
the soil classification system that they
use. ERDC’s system allows engineers
to quickly relate soil type and behavior
information from different soil classifi-
cation systems. While the data provided
is general in nature and cannot replace
detailed geotechnical investigations for
critical infrastructure projects, it can
serve military engineers and planners
during initial project planning, during
the development of plans for a detailed
geotechnical investigation, and when
operational constraints preclude more
detailed investigations in a contin-
gency environment.
Until now, there has been no method
for relating soils data from one soil clas-
sification system to another, requiring
engineers and planners to perform
detailed site investigations, many of
which were premature or unnecessary.
This new soil classification system
matrix will reduce the time required
in the planning process by eliminating
unsuitable sites, by reducing the
amount of testing required, and by aid-
ing in the development of a worldwide
soils database. The ERDC is currently
incorporating this new soil classification
system matrix into U.S. Department of
Defense criteria documents. The ERDC
will be seeking to expand this matrix
for additional soil classification systems
in Asia and to build a worldwide soils
database that relates soils information
in a common system.
j JEB S. TINGLE, PE, is a research civil
engineer for the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center –
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory,
located in Vicksburg, MS. He works
with airfield and pavement designs,
construction methods, and development
of new materials for expedient road/
airfield construction. He can be reached at
jeb.s.tingle@usace.army.mil.
j SHELLEY L. TINGLE is a research civil
engineer for the U.S. Army Engineer
Research and Development Center –
Geotechnical and Structures Laboratory,
in Vicksburg, MS. As the knowledge
management officer, she helps facilitate the
transition of technology from the research
and development community to the
warfighter and industry. She can be reached
at shelley.l.tingle@usace.army.mil.
j DANNY W. HARRELSON, PG, is a research
geologist for the U.S. Army Engineer Research
and Development Center – Geotechnical
and Structures Laboratory, in Vicksburg, MS.
He conducts geological and geotechnical
site investigations for complex U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers projects and researches
the development of new geological
analytical methods. He can be reached at
danny.w.harrelson@usace.army.mil.
 THIS IS YOUR LAST CHANCE TO REGISTER!

TOP
CONFERENCE
BENEFITS
• Pre-conference short courses
• Joint Soil/Structure Technical Sessions
• Business & Professional Practice Sessions
• Risk Management Panels Sessions
• Lightning Round Technical Sessions
• Networking and Collaboration Opportunities
 What’s New in Geo?

Remote
Sensing
JAN/FEB MILITARY
2016 GEOTECHNICS

54 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

A NEW REVOLUTION IN
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
By Ellen M. Rathje, PhD, PE, M.ASCE

Remote sensing in the form of satellite

Figure 0. Caption.
imagery has become a part of our everyday
life — from displaying boring locations at
a job site to the various mapping apps on
our smart phones that help us get there. In
ELLEN M. RATHJE the past, geotechnical engineers might have
searched out air photos to help evaluate
current and past conditions at a site (e.g.,
drainage features, faults, failure scarps), but
now we can quickly open Google Earth™ to
view a site and use the time slider to see how
conditions have evolved over the last 10, 20,
or even 50 years. The ubiquitous availability
of high-resolution imagery has made us all
appreciate the value of the “bird’s eye view”
to our work.

www.asce.org/geo 55
 What’s New in Geo?
At the same time, geotechnical engi-
neers often make do with insufficient or
limited data, such as too few inclinom-
eters, sparse geologic/geomorphic data,
etc. However, remote sensing techniques
offer the opportunity to economically
provide critical data about ground
movements (Figure 1), topography, and
land forms that can help geotechnical
engineers with their work. These tech-
niques are becoming more common
in geotechnical engineering practice,
and improved sensing systems and
new data analysis techniques are being
developed to fully exploit the collected
remote sensing data for geotechnical
applications.
56 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Remote Sensing Technologies
Applied to Geotechnical
Engineering
There are many remote sensing
techniques available; those that have
been used in geotechnical engineering
include satellite imagery, Synthetic
Aperture Radar (SAR), Light Detection
and Ranging (LIDAR), and, more
recently, unmanned aerial vehicles
(UAV). These techniques can collect data
at various scales — from the regional
scale that provides a broader context,
to the site scale that provides detailed
information for a site.
Many satellite sensors currently
image the earth at different spatial
and temporal resolutions and within
Figure 1. Lateral
spread displacements
from Christchurch
earthquake measured
from satellite
imagery. Satellite
analysis performed
with COSI-Corr.
different spectral bands of the
electromagnetic spectrum. Today, the
highest resolution commercial sensor is
WorldView-3, which provides panchro-
matic data (450-800 nm wavelengths,
typically viewed in grayscale) at 0.30 m
resolution, multispectral data (finer
spectral bands within the visible and
near-infrared wavelengths) at ~1.25 m
resolution, and shortwave infrared
(SWIR) data at ~ 4 m resolution. The data
within the finer multispectral and SWIR
bands provide important information
about the different types of landcover
(e.g., vegetation, soil, moisture, etc.),
as well as color information. Currently,
the cost of satellite imagery ranges from
about $10 to $50/km2, with the larger
One of the most exciting new applications of remote
sensing is the measurement of ground movements
through the differencing of remote sensing data collected
at different times.

cost associated with more data process-
ing from the imagery provider.
One potential problem with satellite
imagery is the presence of clouds. An
alternative is SAR, which is an active
sensor (i.e., it emits and detects its
own energy) that operates at longer
wavelengths. Therefore, clouds do not
significantly interfere with the travel of
the waves. In addition to recording the
amplitude of the backscattered radar
waves, SAR also records the phase of the
waves, which allows SAR image pairs or
time series to be processed to measure
cm-level to mm-level ground move-
ments. Because the SAR sensor emits
its energy at an angle (i.e., not vertical),
movement is only measured along
this inclined line of sight, and it can be
difficult to discern the exact direction of
movement. Although sensors like SAR
can image at night and through clouds,
they often have larger pixel size (10 to 30
m). Due to these issues and others (e.g.,
higher cost), SAR has not often been
used for geotechnical applications.
Another active sensor is LIDAR,
which involves the detection of reflected
light from the ground using a laser
source mounted either on an aerial
platform or on the ground. The scanner
emits repeated pulses of laser light
directed to many points (thousands to
billions) in the scan area and measures
the light reflected from the surface
at each point. By timing the round
trip of each laser pulse, the distance
between the scanner and the surface
is determined at each point. Knowing
the orientation and travel distance
of the laser beam, a group of (x, y, z)
coordinates, referred to as a “point

Figure 2. Types of sUAV platforms. (Image courtesy of Kevin Franke, BYU.)

www.asce.org/geo 57
 What’s New in Geo?
Figure 3. (a) Photo of geologic outcrop, (b) DEM produced from digital photographs using Structure from Motion (SfM).
(Westoby et al. 2012, used with permission from Elsevier.)
cloud,” is produced relative to the
scanner location. The location of the
scanner and/or reference points in the
point cloud can be determined by GPS
or conventional survey to tie the point
cloud to a known coordinate system. The
point cloud can be processed to develop
a digital elevation model. Collection
of aerial LIDAR data can be costly, but
many states provide free access to this
data.
UAVs are aerial robots that can be
remotely or autonomously controlled
and can carry a wide variety of sensors,
including cameras, radar, and LIDAR.
Small UAVs (sUAV, Figure 2), which
typically weigh less than 23 kg, offer
the advantage of obtaining data from a
low-altitude vantage point for a relatively
low cost. sUAVs are becoming so abun-
dant that recreational operators have
used them to collect video of various
failure sites and then have posted them
on YouTube. In fact, my colleague Dr.
58 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Stephen Wright recently told me that he
believes sUAV video of a site should be
required for any slope stability project
for proper assessment of the site.
Digital Elevation Models
If you have used remote sensing data in
your work, you most likely have used a
LIDAR-derived Digital Elevation Model
(DEM), which provides significantly
more detail than a traditional topo-
graphic survey. Furthermore, filters can
be applied when post-processing LIDAR
data to remove vegetation, making it
possible to image the ground below the
tree canopy. This has allowed LIDAR
to identify fault traces and ancient
landslides within heavily vegetated areas
and even locate archaeological ruins
within the jungle. For smaller areas,
a tripod-mounted LIDAR system can
collect data at a higher spatial resolution
and with increased accuracy (i.e.,
sub-cm accuracy vs. cm-level accuracy
for aerial LIDAR), which can provide
even more detail. However, this type of
terrestrial LIDAR data is more influenced
by obstructions, such as vegetation,
that cannot be removed from the data.
A potential alternative is the use of
an sUAV to collect LIDAR data, which
potentially is less expensive than using
an aircraft. Additionally, sUAV-collected
LIDAR data may achieve the resolution
and accuracy of a terrestrial system
without the problems associated with
obstructions. However, few turn-key
sUAV-LIDAR systems are currently
available.
As an alternative to LIDAR, new
approaches have been developed to
generate DEMs. For instance, digital
photographs can be integrated with
stereo photogrammetry or computer
vision techniques such as Structure from
Motion (SfM). While traditional photo-
grammetry requires a network of targets
with known locations, SfM identifies
distinguishing features (e.g., edges, boundaries between
high-contrast objects) in the overlapping digital photographs
as targets and back-calculates the relative location of those Although displacement
features in three dimensions. SfM generates a 3-D point cloud
similar to that produced by LIDAR, with the resolution and
accuracy dependent on the photo resolution and number of
measurements from remote
photographs. Using a consumer-grade, digital camera, a few
hours of photograph collection, and roughly a day of image sensing will never completely
processing on a typical desktop computer, high-resolution
DEMs can be developed in which cm-scale features can be replace traditional field
identified (Figure 3). As with LIDAR, the images required
for SfM can be acquired from an aircraft, sUAV, or from the
ground. Photographs can even be harvested from the Internet
displacement monitoring,
and social networking media to develop the image set needed
for the development of a model. particularly subsurface
Displacement Monitoring measurements from
One of the most exciting new applications of remote sensing is
the measurement of ground movements through the differenc-
ing of remote sensing data collected at different times. Remote
inclinometers or other
sensing can provide displacement measurements at a spatial
density that cannot realistically or economically be obtained in techniques, a benefit of
any other way. And the analyses can resolve displacements as
small as 10 to 30 cm in the horizontal direction and less than a using remote sensing data to
cm in the vertical direction.
Two-dimensional optical image correlation techniques
can be applied to sets of satellite imagery or air photos
monitor displacements is that
to develop vectors of horizontal displacement. These
correlation techniques involve matching small patches of it can provide a more holistic
pixels between two images to obtain relative horizontal
displacement. As shown in Figure 4 for the Portuguese Bend view of a site.
Landslide in California, the displacement field resolved by
satellite imagery provides more information regarding the
spatial extent of movements and the variation of movements
within the landslide than even an extensive array of GPS
monuments across the landslide. In applying this approach present in the point clouds to accurately measure horizontal
to liquefaction-induced lateral spreading (Figure 1), we have displacement.
the opportunity to significantly enhance our database of Although displacement measurements from remote sens-
lateral spread displacements and improve our understanding ing will never completely replace traditional field displacement
of the factors that influence these displacements. monitoring, particularly subsurface measurements from
To measure vertical displacement or three-dimensional inclinometers or other techniques, a benefit of using remote
displacement vectors, point clouds are required. These point sensing data to monitor displacements is that it can provide
clouds can be derived from LIDAR or digital photogramme- a more holistic view of a site. Additionally, this broader view
try (e.g., SfM). Vertical differencing of two point clouds is can be easily integrated with other data within a geospatial
relatively straightforward and has long been used to measure framework, allowing for the identification of relationships that
vertical movement. Three-dimensional differencing involves could not be recognized otherwise.
more significant computation and requires higher quality
data. The Iterative Closest Point (ICP) technique, or its Be Prepared for the Remote Sensing Revolution!
variants, commonly is used to compute these displacements. Clearly, there are many remote sensing techniques available
ICP computes the 3-D rigid body translation and rotation for use in geotechnical engineering, but their successful
required to minimize the sum of the squared error between application requires knowledge of the techniques and their
segments within the two point clouds. An important consid- processing requirements, as well as their advantages and lim-
eration is that three-dimensional features or texture must be itations. As always, the devil is in the details! When identifying

www.asce.org/geo 59
 What’s New in Geo?
Figure 4. Displacements of Portuguese Bend Landslide from satellite imagery and GPS measurements. Satellite analysis performed
with COSI-Corr. GPS data provided by the City of Rancho Palos Verdes and the Abalone Cove Landslide Abatement District.
the appropriate remote sensing technique for an application,
there are always tradeoffs in terms of the spatial resolution/
accuracy of the data relative to the aerial coverage. Higher
resolution data with higher accuracy typically only cover
relatively small areas. To capture a larger area, one must
often sacrifice spatial resolution and accuracy, but the larger
aerial context may be more important than the higher spatial
resolution and accuracy. However, it is becoming easier and
cheaper to capture higher resolution data through the use
of low-cost sUAVs, digital cameras, and image processing
software. This approach allows one to get into the remote
sensing game for a relatively modest investment (~$5,000) as
compared to terrestrial LIDAR systems (~$100,000). Finally,
issues related to data quality, data volume, and computa-
tional resources must be considered.
To be prepared to properly identify and use remote
sensing techniques in geotechnical engineering, we must
move outside our comfort zone and become familiar with
these new technologies. Understanding these techniques
will necessitate acquiring new skills and becoming more
comfortable with large-scale data processing, analysis, and
computation. Many remote sensing techniques build off
of traditional geomatics and surveying fundamentals, but
unfortunately these fundamentals are not being taught
as often in today’s civil engineering curricula. However,
students can strategically select electives in these areas from
60 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
geoscience or geography departments to supplement their
civil engineering courses. For those of us who have finished
our formal schooling, seek out short courses on remote
sensing or boldly decide to attend that conference session
that has “remote sensing” in its title. Embrace these new
technologies because the sky (no pun) is the limit!
Acknowledgments
My work in remote sensing has been heavily influenced
by involvement in the Geotechnical Extreme Events
Reconnaissance (GEER) Association, as well as by various
collaborators, colleagues, and students, many of whom are
not civil engineers. These colleagues include Drs. Melba
Crawford (Purdue University), Kevin Franke (BYU), and
Sebastien Leprince (Caltech). Finally, my students who
have been brave enough to tackle remote sensing for their
geotechnical research include Oscar Suncar, J. Grant Martin,
Olivia Deterling, and Sorin Secara.
j ELLEN M. RATHJE, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, is the Warren S. Bellows
Centennial Professor in the Department of Civil, Architectural, and
Environmental Engineering at the University of Texas at Austin. Her
research activities involve geotechnical earthquake engineering,
landslide assessment, reconnaissance of extreme events through
leadership in Geotechnical Extreme Events Reconnaissance (GEER),
and remote sensing. She can be reached at e.rathje@mail.utexas.
Develop G-I WEBINARS
HTTP://WWW.ASCE.ORG/BECOME_AN_INSTRUCTOR/

Webinars Provide You With a Means to:

Build Educate & Develop Give back
recognition, network a gateway to to the profession
prestige, with many short courses/
and clients geoprofessionals workshops,
conferences,
and articles

Attend G-I WEBINARS

HTTP://WWW.ASCE.ORG/CONTINUING-EDUCATION/LIVE-WEBINARS/

Webinars are convenient, low-cost,

and an efficient training option.
Login anywhere and interact with the instructor and other participants. Our
webinars cover practical, targeted topics taught by experts in their field. Gain
knowledge and earn PDHs.

Please direct questions regarding development of webinars to programproposals@asce.org.

For questions regarding attending webinars, please contact continuingeducation@asce.org.
JAN/FEB MILITARY
2016 GEOTECHNICS

A Faculty
Internship
Reconnecting with the Profession
By Mary J. S. Roth, PhD, PE, M.ASCE

62 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016


After spending eight years as a full-time
academic administrator at Lafayette
College in Easton, PA — one of only a
handful of institutions where discipline-​
specific engineering programs are
embedded in an undergraduate-only,
liberal arts environment — I returned to
full-time teaching in fall 2015. I began
teaching civil engineering at Lafayette
in 1991 and became department head
in 2003, the start of an administrative
journey that eventually reduced my
teaching load to zero. From 2006 until
2014, I served as an American Council
on Education fellow, the interim director
of engineering, and then associate
provost for academic operations.
I stepped down from my role as associate provost at the end of
the 2013-14 academic year and enjoyed a yearlong sabbatical
in 2014-15. One of the primary goals of the sabbatical was to
prepare myself to return to the classroom. To meet that goal, I
attended pedagogical conferences, read up on the latest peda-
gogical approaches, familiarized myself with new technologies
that enhance student learning, and developed a number of new
courses. In addition, I knew I needed to re-familiarize myself
with what my students, as future geotechnical engineering
Left: Mary Roth examines rock cores in a laboratory. Top: Site photo from Hudson Yards, a large private real estate development
project in New York City.
practitioners, will experience when they start working.
After completing a master’s degree in civil engineering in
1986, I worked for three years as a geotechnical engineer at
Woodward-Clyde Consultants — at that time one of the larger
geotechnical and environmental engineering consulting firms.
I spent time in the field investigating sites and observing
construction; in the office, I developed designs for retaining
walls, foundations, and excavation support. I also developed
budgets, wrote proposals and reports, and provided research
support for more senior engineers who were preparing to serve
as expert witnesses. With this background, I was able to bring
first-hand engineering practice experience into the classroom
when I started teaching in the early 1990s, and I saw how shar-
ing that experience engaged my students in the subject much
more than any phase diagram or Mohr’s circle ever could. As
I prepared to return to the classroom, however, I worried that
my stories from my time as a practicing engineer had become
stale and needed to be refreshed.
Trying to Stay Connected
In my administrative role, I didn’t disconnect from the
geotechnical engineering field, but I could do little more than
keep up with recent publications and attend a professional
meeting or two each year. During that time, I also kept in touch
with former students who updated me on their own careers.
In particular, I had maintained regular contact with Marc
Gallagher, a former student who is now a senior principal at
Langan Engineering & Environmental Services, a full-service
engineering and environmental company with offices
worldwide. In addition to having him visit regularly to share his
experiences with students at Lafayette, we talked about ways
I could stay connected with the practice of geotechnical engi-
neering during my time in administration. As my sabbatical
approached, we began discussing the possibility of a “faculty
internship,” a hands-on experience with current engineering
www.asce.org/geo 63
Left: Mary Roth and Marc Gallagher review reports for upcoming projects. Right: Marc Gallagher presents a guest lecture to students
in Mary Roth’s Introduction to Engineering course.
practice that would benefit me and my
future students.
Goals
We met at the start of my sabbatical to
discuss the goals for the internship. We
agreed that by the end of the internship
I would:
oo be re-familiarized with consulting firm
operations and how new engineering
hires fit into those operations
oo have new stories of projects that I could
share with students after removing
client names and actual site locations
oo have a list of modifications to consider
for my teaching that would reflect
industry needs
oo expand my contacts with practicing
geotechnical engineers
Planned Activities
We also discussed a range of activities
that would support the goals and
decided I would:
oo attend a Monday morning, senior
management operations meeting
oo meet with project managers to discuss
their professional histories, current
projects, and thoughts regarding
educational needs
oo meet with recent engineering hires
to discuss their backgrounds, current
work, and thoughts regarding how
64 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
effectively their education aligned with
the requirements of their jobs
oo sit in on client meetings (both on the
phone and in person)
oo visit at least one active project site
oo review engineering reports (both for
completed projects and draft reports
in progress)
oo attend a risk assessment committee
meeting
oo attend a Friday morning staffing
meeting
What Happened?
In December 2014, I traveled to New
York City (NYC) for my internship. Since
my sabbatical finances were not infinite,
I chose to commute from home — a
process that took nearly two hours, one
way, door-to-door. (I don’t know how
Marc does 1:20 each way on a daily
basis!) The original plan was for a full
week of visits, but the combination of
wintry weather and the daily grind of
commuting (my usual daily commute
at school is no more than five minutes),
I trimmed the five days of travel to NYC
to four. However, with the exception of
the visit to an active project site, I was
able to complete all of the activities as
originally planned.
What Did I Learn?
Perhaps most surprising to me was how
the activities I observed and heard about
were so similar to my experiences 25
years ago. The site work, the process of
writing, revising, and reviewing proposals
and reports, and the importance of
developing good relationships with
clients, permitting agencies, and other
professionals (e.g., architects, engineers,
and contractors) are nearly unchanged.
The methods used for communication
and the programs used for engineering
analysis have benefited from new
technologies and design approaches, but
the work is fundamentally the same. The
only notable exception is the greater focus
on sustainability — driven perhaps by
regulations — resulting in requirements
for planning and accounting for “cradle to
grave” issues related to excavated and fill
materials on construction sites.
I’m pleased to report that I was able
to gain some new project stories to share
with my students, and as a result of the
internship, I will change some of the
content in my courses. Specifically, the
internship reminded me of the need
to introduce students to permitting
processes and to discuss the importance
of building good relationships with other
professionals. Those elements of the
practice were important 25 years ago,
but as a young faculty member, I focused
much more on the technical content in
the courses I developed. The technical
content is important, but perhaps
because of my experience as an adminis-
trator, or perhaps just the benefit of 20+
years, I now have a greater appreciation
for the importance of building and
nurturing relationships across traditional
disciplinary boundaries.
I believe that the importance of
relationships can be brought to the
classroom through more stories and dis-
cussions that encompass the full lifespan
of a project. Often, when a case study is
discussed in an engineering course, it’s
presented to illustrate a particular ele-
ment of the project (e.g., a particular type
of analysis problem), and the story of the
project before and after that element is
briefly conveyed, if at all. For example, I
have presented case studies involving the
design of a temporary excavation support
structure and have carefully described
the existing soil and water conditions,
the installation of the excavation
support system, and basic performance
characteristics of the structure (e.g.,
profiles of horizontal movements).
However, I’ve left out of the story the
permitting process and the conversations
with adjacent landowners that had to
be completed prior to construction,
the complications that typically occur
during the construction and operation
of the structure as a result of being in an
urban environment, and what happens
once the temporary support is no longer
necessary. There isn’t time to provide full
stories for every case study that is used
in a course, but if full stories are never
provided, the students miss critical parts
of the engineering process.
I also was reminded of the need to
stress to students that a geotechnical
engineer has to become familiar with the
geology in the area of his/her practice
and needs basic CAD and sketching
skills sufficient to clearly communicate
his/her observations to other engineers
and clients. Finally, while I have always
stressed the importance of writing skills
in my courses and provide extensive
feedback to students about their writing
from the legal and client perspectives, it
may also be useful to give students the
Having a sabbatical to transition back
into my faculty position gave me time to
reconnect with my field and to prepare
to resume full-time teaching.
opportunity to read and edit reports of
practicing engineers. In particular, I plan
to share early drafts as well as final ver-
sions of geotechnical reports to illustrate
how the editing process is performed and
the importance of clear communication.
Thoughts on Reconnecting
with the Profession
Taking time away from teaching and
research to serve in the college’s adminis-
tration gave me an in-depth opportunity
to understand the operations of the
college and a chance to support faculty in
their efforts to improve student learning.
But my administrative responsibilities
required that I step back from teaching
and active research in my field. Having a
sabbatical to transition back into my fac-
ulty position gave me time to reconnect
with my field and to prepare to resume
full-time teaching. My faculty internship
with Langan was a valuable part of that
sabbatical and helped me to meet my
sabbatical goals.
For me, the greatest benefit of the
internship was the opportunity to
renew my knowledge of the practice of
geotechnical consulting so that I can
bring that knowledge to the classroom.
While I have seen that the practice has
not changed dramatically since the
mid-1980s, had I not had the internship,
I might have had nagging doubts about
my grasp of current consulting practice.
In addition, I had the time to meet and
talk to young practicing engineers. Those
conversations helped me to understand
what my students will be experiencing
shortly after they graduate, and I plan
to adjust my teaching to better prepare
them for that experience. Marc and
his colleagues are better positioned to
address the benefits the internship had
for Langan, but from my perspective,
Langan has strengthened its connections
with Lafayette and has helped to shape
the education of future engineers.
A faculty internship does not have to
be a significant time commitment for a
faculty member or for the sponsoring
engineering firm. Given the increasing
expectations on faculty for teaching,
research, and service, it might be difficult
for a faculty member to participate in an
internship while not on sabbatical; how-
ever, most faculty have the opportunity
to take sabbaticals during their careers,
and a sabbatical provides an excellent
opportunity to connect and/or reconnect
to engineering practice. I encourage fac-
ulty and engineering firms to reach out to
each other and to make faculty internships
a regular practice to benefit themselves,
their students, and the profession.
j MARY J. S. ROTH, PhD, PE, M.ASCE, is
the Simon Cameron Long Professor of Civil
and Environmental Engineering at Lafayette
College in Easton, PA. Mary’s research
interests include risk assessment for earth
retaining structures, site investigation
methods in karst, and engineering pedagogy.
She was also a member of GEOSTRATA’s
first editorial board. She can be reached at
rothm@lafayette.edu.
www.asce.org/geo 65
 The GeoCurmudgeon

Don’t Say That!

By John P. Bachner

People worldwide regard professionals

as the best society has to offer:
well-educated, experienced, learned,
even-handed, calm, and, of course, able
to communicate well, both orally and
in writing. As you no doubt are (or most
certainly should be) aware, the “write well”
part may be the most important
attribute of geoprofessionals, because –
in geoprofessional practice – a failure to
write well can result in a penalty far more
severe than a tarnished image: A dispute.
A claim. Subpoenas. Insurance issues.
Research. Anxiety. Sleeplessness. Lawyers.
Experts. Discovery. Unpleasant surprises.
Frustration. Aggravation. More lawyers. And that’s long before the issue of
settlement gets raised. Because, for geoprofessionals, instruments of professional
service – starting with the proposal – are in writing. In fact, geoprofessionals write
more than any other professionals do, and, thanks to the wonderful world of IT, just
about every word you write – every proposal, every report, every e-mail, and every
text – lingers forever, residing in servers in the cloud. And that makes for a truly
scary scenario, because, for the most part, geoprofessionals are not particularly
good writers (they usually start avoiding English composition around grade six or
seven) and they don’t like writing enough to want to get better.

66 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

You are probably far more at ease focusing on all the
technical stuff you love, which is why you read this
magazine in the first place. But you need to know a lot
more than the technical stuff if you want to keep loving
the stuff you love to do.
I understand geoprofessionals’ desire to avoid English
composition. I don’t condone it, of course, because
geoprofessionals are more than just professionals, like
lawyers, physicians, clergy, accountants, and such; in fact,
geoprofessionals are the most important professionals on
Earth, because they are our planet’s custodians. Besides, not
being among the world’s best writers is hardly a sin or fatal
flaw, but there are limits, soon reached should you use words
or phrases that you should never in your professional capac-
ity use, because they could trigger the onset of that severe
penalty I mentioned above. And speaking of “never use,” the
following four words and phrases fit that bill precisely, for
liability reasons in particular:
In general compliance with…, In general accordance
with…, and phrases of that ilk. They mean… what? As near
as I can tell, they mean, “We’re aware of the standard way,
and we probably didn’t do everything, but we complied with
most of it.” Well, if that’s “kinda’ sorta’” what it means, don’t
you think you should make me – the client representative –
aware of just which elements you’re going to forgo and why,
to ensure you have my buy-in and approval? I think so.
That’s why I recommend that you not use this expression,
lest it becomes too comfortable — kind of like a security
blanket that can get you into a whole lot of trouble.
A number of… “Well, we don’t know how many rocks there
are down there, but we know, if you could count ‘em, you’d
get a number.” My “number of” is not your number of.
Result: We instantly miscommunicate whenever we say “A
number of….” Try using a real number or an approximate
range. And if you don’t know, say so; i.e., “We can only
guess at the number of rocks at the ten-foot level, based
on our experience in the geographic area. We strongly
recommend that you not rely on guesswork and, instead,
conduct the additional sampling required to develop more
reliable data.”
Several: That falls into the same category as a number of.
I don’t know how others interpret the word, but I usually
assume it’s less than a dozen or so but more than two.
Again, give a range.
Maximize, Minimize: People commonly use these words
to mean make larger or smaller. They actually mean make
as large or as small as possible. If that’s not the thought
you intend to convey, use different, more accurate words,
like enlarge or increase and reduce or shrink.
The next six entries exemplify improper professional termi-
nology, i.e., you’re a professional; communicate like one!
Work: Professionals do not provide, do, or perform work.
Work is something constructors do. Professionals perform
a service.
Product: A geoprofessional report or a set of plans
and specs is not a product. Either is an instrument of
professional service, a vehicle through which professionals
make their service manifest and usable. Either could also
be termed a deliverable, which is a far less satisfying, far
more general term, as applicable to a geoprofessional
report as it is to a package from Amazon. Important: Note
that professionals are subject to the negligence-liability
doctrine. If a trier of fact – a judge or jury – finds that a
professional failed to meet the standard of care and, as a
consequence, someone was injured or damaged, the pro-
fessional would be judged negligent and be liable for it. If a
trier of fact finds that an instrument of professional service
is, by virtue of the professional’s nomenclature, a product,
then product liability (a.k.a., strict liability) would apply. In
that case, the professional would be found at fault simply
because the “product” did not work as it should have.
Professional liability does not cover strict liability, unless
the liable ruling was reversed on appeal, which would be
www.asce.org/geo 67
 likely. (But who wants to go that far?)
Job: Professionals do not do jobs, despite those plastic
surgeons who cannot help but refer to their interventions
in such terms, as in nose job, neck job, and eye job.
Geoprofessionals accept or perform commissions or
projects.
Customer: I realize that “customer relations” is a valid
term (marginally so in the case of professional-practice
environments) to describe a collection of procedures and
attitudes one should adopt to make client representatives
feel appreciated and respected. However, professionals do
not have customers; they have clients.
Client: A client is the entity that commissions and pays
for your services. Seldom is it a single person. The person
whom you take to lunch is therefore not a client, but rather
a client representative.
Hire: Clients do not hire geoprofessionals; they retain
them.
EMPLOYMENT
Senior Technical Manager (Civil Engineer)
One of the nation’s largest and most dynamic
nonprofit organizations is currently searching
for a civil engineer to provide technical and
product support within our Geo-Institute. Do
you like working with others who are passion-
ate about their work? We are looking for the
right person to join our team of professionals
providing geotechnical engineers with the
resources they need to advance their careers.
The American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE) is a nonprofit professional membership
association dedicated to the advancement of
civil engineering in order to serve the public
good. For consideration, submissions of
interest must contain a resume and cover
letter with salary history and requirements.
To apply, go to: https://asce.applicantpro.com/jobs/318125.html
68 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
Be advised that you can get help with this and many
other practice issues from the Geoprofessional Business
Association. True: You are probably far more at ease focusing
on all the technical stuff you love, which is why you read this
magazine in the first place. But you need to know a lot more
than the technical stuff if you want to keep loving the stuff
you love to do.
j JOHN P. BACHNER served as the executive vice president of the
Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) from 1973 through
2015. GBA is a not-for-profit association that develops programs,
services, and materials to help its member firms and their clients
confront risk and optimize performance. GBA-Member Firms
provide geotechnical, geologic, environmental, construction-
materials engineering and testing (CoMET), and related professional
services (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoprofessions). GBA invites
geoprofessional constructors, educators, and government officials
to become involved. Contact GBA at info@geoprofessional.org.
Contact John at john@bachner.com.
EOE M/F/D/V
Responsibilities include:
j Serving as liaison to technical, board, and editorial board
committees
j Working with regional and allied groups on collaborative technical
activities
 acilitating the development of manuals of practice, technical briefs,
j F
short courses, workshops, webinars and seminars
 anaging, developing, and enhancing geotechnical guidance
j M
documents and standards
 anaging the production, and developing sections of our
j M
bi-monthly GEOSTRATA magazine
The ideal candidate will have:
j A BS in Civil Engineering (Master’s preferred)
j Five to eight years’ experience (association experience a plus)
j PE license preferred (or ability to obtain within 1 year)
j Experience (or an interest) in geotechnical engineering
ASCE Press publishes books that matter for
today’s geotechnical engineers.

Slope Stability Analysis by the Limit

Equilibrium Method
Fundamentals and Methods
by Yang H. Huang, Sc.D., P.E.
Huang presents basic principles for the safe design of constructed or
natural earth slopes. The clear presentation of the principles of slope
stability analysis ensures that this book will be a frequently consult-
ed reference for practicing engineers.
List $75 / ASCE Member $56.25
2014 | ASCE Press | 378 pp.
Soft cover: Stock # 41288 | ISBN 978-0-7844-1288-6
E-book: Stock # 47800 | ISBN 978-0-7844-7800-4

Companion software
LEAME Software and User’s Manual
Analyzing Slope Stability by the Limit
Equilibrium Method
by Yang H. Huang, Sc.D., P.E.
This useful software determines the factors of safety for both two-
and three-dimensional slopes, and contains features not available
elsewhere to solve practical problems in slope stability.
List $350 / ASCE Member $262.50
2014 | ASCE Press
Software & PDF Manual: Stock # 47799 | ISBN 978-0-7844-7799-1

The LEAME software can be used on any PC with Windows 95 or

higher. Multi-user/multisite licenses are available by inquiring at
ascelibrary@asce.org or calling 1-800-548-2723.

Text Adoption:

For more information on using these titles in your classroom, contact ascelibrary@asce.org.

Contact ASCE to Order

Web: www.asce.org/publications | E-Mail: ascelibrary@asce.org
Ph 1-800-548-2723 (U.S.) / 1-703-295-6300 (International)
 Look Who’s a D.GE
Carol W. Bowers,
PG, Hon.D.GE, CAE, ENV SP, M.ASCE
Carol W. Bowers, a certified association
executive, professional geologist, and
Envision™ sustainability professional,
is the managing director, Member
Communities Division, for the
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE). The Division supports ASCE’s
Member Communities Committee,
which is responsible for member
support, engagement, and commu-
nication. The Member Communities
Committee provides support and over-
sight to the Society’s Geographic Units,
as well as oversight to three constituent
committees: the Leadership Training
Committee, Committee on Younger
CAROL W. BOWERS Members, and Committee on Student
Members.
Previously, Bowers was the interim
executive director for the American
Association of Engineering Societies
(AAES), providing association
management experience by partnering
with the AAES board of directors on
strategic management of the organi-
zation. Concurrently, she served as the
ASCE vice president for sustainable
infrastructure systems development.
In that capacity, she was responsible
for managing the creation of a rating
system for civil infrastructures and the
Institute for Sustainable Infrastructure,
an organization founded by ASCE, the
70 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
American Public Works Association, and
the American Council of Engineering
Companies.
Bowers is also a former director
of the Geo-Institute (G-I) of ASCE, a
specialty membership organization
within ASCE comprised of 11,000
geo-professionals, including geotech-
nical engineers, geologists, and earth
scientists. She has been with ASCE since
January of 1997. She credits her success
with ASCE to her many opportunities
to work and interact with the amazingly
dedicated ASCE members, and particu-
larly those of the G-I.
Bowers previously worked in envi-
ronmental consulting in the Washington,
DC area for 10 years. Before that, she
worked in petroleum exploration for five
years in New Orleans, LA.
What class did you enjoy the most
while in school?
Plate Tectonics. When I took it in the late
1970s, it was still a relatively new con-
cept (initially accepted in the mid-60s),
so we had an entire course dedicated to
it. The professor was really tough, but I
loved that it wasn’t just memorization
and made me think.
What was your favorite project?
Association management has been
my fun career. I particularly enjoyed
working with G-I members to develop
GEOSTRATA magazine and partnering
with affiliated organizations on
G-I Congresses.
What item did you always want
to have?
A dog, I guess. I had dogs when I was
growing up, but my family’s lifestyle
today has precluded owning a dog
because we travel so much.
What’s your favorite song and artist?
Pretty much anything by the Neville
Brothers out of New Orleans.
What’s your favorite movie or
television show?
Right now it has to be Big Bang Theory,
at least until they come up with a good,
scientifically correct movie or TV show
about geologists and geotechnical
engineers.
Where did you spend most of your
childhood, and what was it like for
you growing up there?
I grew up in Media, PA, a suburb of
Philadelphia. My childhood home
starting in 3rd grade backed up to Ridley
Creek State Park, so I spent a lot of my
time exploring the woods and nearby
creek. I loved the outdoors and was
constantly picking up and bringing
home rocks or shells from the NJ shore.
In junior high and high school, I got
involved in sports, particularly field
hockey and lacrosse. My parents were
extremely supportive and encouraged
me to do whatever I loved. They never
told me I should or shouldn’t do certain
things because I was female, so I grew up
believing I could do just about anything
if I worked hard.
How do you feel about the state of
civil engineering and the profession
as it is today?
I think it’s incredibly important to com-
municate with the millennial generation
about how much civil engineering
makes a difference in people’s lives
across the world. One of my main goals
throughout my life was to make a differ-
ence, and I see that in the millennials,
as well. Civil engineering is a discipline
that touches everyone’s life every day,
and being involved in that impact can be I think two of the
very exciting and rewarding.
most important
What do you feel are the biggest
challenges on the horizon for
the profession?
challenges continue
I think two of the most important
challenges continue to be embracing to be embracing
multi-disciplinary teams and recog-
nizing that the individual members multi-disciplinary
contribute to the whole project’s success.
In my early days, I thought I needed to teams and recognizing
prove myself by tackling things alone.
Later in my career, I came to understand that the individual
the value of working in teams and
appreciating everyone’s contributions.
members contribute
Secondly, I believe we need to under-
stand how to think globally. Even if
we’re working on something small that
to the whole project’s
seems to have only local impact, there
are so many opportunities to learn from success. In my early
the global community and, hopefully,
contribute our technical knowledge to days, I thought I
that community, as well.
needed to prove
Do you have a message about
specialty certification that you’d myself by tackling
like for professional engineers to
be aware of?
things alone. Later in
I believe that specialty certification
can really make you stand out. I wasn’t
required to take the PG exam to practice
my career, I came to
in any of my positions, but I believed
it was the right thing to do to set me understand the value
apart from the crowd when my firm
was submitting proposals or when I was of working in teams
looking for a new position. The D.GE
shows you’ve pushed yourself a little and appreciating
harder and have gained the recognition
of your peers in a very tangible way. everyone’s
For the complete interview, please
contributions.
visit geoprofessionals.org.
www.asce.org/geo 71
 G-I ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER NEWS

Arup
Celebrates
Major Project
Openings
Arup, a multidisciplinary engineering
and consulting firm with a reputation
for delivering innovative and sustainable
designs, celebrated the official opening
of the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport
Pedestrian Tunnel in Toronto and the
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) No. 7 Subway Line Extension in
Manhattan.
The Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport
Pedestrian Tunnel was built under the
Western Gap of Toronto Harbor on Lake
Ontario. The $82.5M P3 project connects
the Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport
to downtown Toronto. Arup, the lead
tunnel designer for the project, designed
the tunnel as well as the mainland shaft
situated 6 m from the water’s edge, and
the island shaft, the mainland terminal
building, and the connection to the exist-
ing airport terminal on the island side.
Arup also performed all numerical
analyses for temporary support of
drift bores and main tunnel excavation
activities, in addition to the final lining of
the main tunnel. The 10-m cut diameter
of this tunnel makes it one of the largest
tunnels to be constructed in shale
bedrock in the greater Toronto area.
Arup monitored movements in the shafts,
drift tunnels, and main tunnel excavation,
which enabled design requirements to
change to better suit the project.
The tunnel won the Tunnelling
Association of Canada’s 2014 Canadian

72 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016


Project Award, and the Specialist
Tunnelling Project of the Year from
the International Tunnelling and
Underground Space Association.
Arup also served as tunnel
design engineer for the $2.42 billion
Metropolitan Transportation Authority
(MTA) No. 7 Line Extension, which
lengthens the subway line from its
current terminus at Times Square to the
far west of midtown Manhattan.
Arup provided the final design of the
initial ground support and the construc-
tion sequence design of all drill-and-blast
excavations. This phase of the project
involved the first large rock cavern to
be excavated in Manhattan in 40 years,
and Arup’s work included three 40-50
ft diameter rock shafts, a tunnel boring
machine (TBM) assembly chamber, a pair
of TBM starter and tail tunnels, a TBM
reception chamber, five cross passages,
two interlocking caverns, and the
approximately 1,000-ft-long, 60-ft-tall,
70-ft-span 34th Street Station cavern.
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc.
Opens New Office
GZA GeoEnvironmental, Inc, a leading
geotechnical and environmental con-
sulting firm, announced the opening of a
new office at 35 Nutmeg Drive, Suite 325,
in Trumbull, CT.
The Trumbull office will be the culmi-
nation of the merger between the staff
of Heller and Johnsen of Stratford, CT,
which joined GZA in April 2015, and the
GZA Fairfield, CT office. The professional
engineers from the Heller and Johnsen
office will join GZA’s Fairfield professional
staff in the new 5,585-sq-ft office space,
providing a unified presence in the local
markets. Kathleen Cyr, PE, principal at
GZA, will lead the new Trumbull office.
TenCate Geosynthetics
Introduces Geotube®
Mining and Mineral
Processing Video
TenCate Geotube® dewatering technol-
ogy provides a simple and cost-effective
way of dewatering large and small
volumes of mining and mineral wastes.
Videos on Geotube® technology can be
found on geotube.com.
Shannon & Wilson Hires
Environmental Scientist
Shannon & Wilson,
an employee-
owned geotechni-
cal and
environmental con-
sulting firm, is
pleased to
announce that
Morgan Ripp has
joined the St. Louis office as an
Environmental Scientist. Ripp is a recent
graduate of the University of Wisconsin in
Madison, WI, with a bachelor of arts
degree in GIS/cartography and geogra-
phy. She has worked with Operation
Wallacea (Opwall), an organization that
runs a series of biological and conserva-
tion management research programs in
remote locations in 14 countries and
recently returned from Honduras, where
she gathered and organized wildlife data.
www.asce.org/geo 73
 G-I ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER NEWS
HUESKER, Inc. Announces
Expansion
The Cleveland County Economic
Development Partnership is pleased to
announce the expansion of HUESKER,
Inc., currently located in Shelby, NC.
With this proposed expansion, the com-
pany hopes to create approximately 20
new jobs, with average wages exceeding
Cleveland County’s wage standard.
The company will also be making
significant improvements to the existing
50,000-sq-ft facility by constructing an
additional 100,000 square ft, which will
create a total of 150,000 square ft of
manufacturing, warehouse, and office
space. Total project cost will include
a new investment of approximately
$8,500,000.
Malcolm Drilling Announces
New Office Location & New
Webpage
Malcolm Drilling Company, Inc. has
recently opened a new office in Oak
Creek, WI. The office will cover the
midwest region with the entire scope
Malcolm has to offer and will fill the
gap between the Rocky Mountain and
southeast offices.
The company has also redesigned
its web­­page for convenient access
from all mobile devices. Please visit
malcolmdrilling.com.
Hayward Baker Acquires
Ellington Cross
Hayward Baker Inc. (HBI) announces
the acquisition of Ellington Cross LLC
(EC), a regional geotechnical contractor
that provides earthquake drain design and
installation. Headquartered in Charleston,
SC, Ellington Cross operates primarily in
NC, SC, and GA.
EC and HBI will combine operations
into the existing Charleston area office
and operate under the name “Ellington
Cross, a division of Hayward Baker.” HBI
will take on EC’s existing management
team and employees, as well as assume
existing contracts.
EC is a regional geotechnical
contractor focused on liquefaction
74 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
mitigation ground improvement using Also promoted to
earthquake drains (sometimes referred to vice president and
as “EQ drains”). HBI owns the patent for selected to serve as
mitigating liquefaction using prefabricated the Chantilly assis-
vertical drains throughout North America. tant branch
The Charleston headquarters office manager position is
of Ellington Cross, a division of Hayward ECS principal engi-
Baker, is located at 4 Carriage Lane, Suite neer Scott Stannard.
203, Charleston, SC 29407. Stannard’s responsi-
bilities include technical and managerial
Strata Systems, Inc. Launches oversight of a team of 250 who perform
Target-Specific Website consulting engineering services for a vari-
Strata Systems, Inc., a global manu- ety of infrastructure projects. Stannard
facturer of soil reinforcement products, holds a bachelor’s degree in civil engi-
is pleased to announce the launch of neering from the University of Maryland.
its new regional website, which targets
a South American customer base. The Dominic Agyepong
website can be accessed in English or has been promoted
Spanish at geogrid.com or directly at to principal engi-
geogrid.com/es-mx/home-2. neer. An employee
of the firm since
Engineering Consulting 2003, Agyepong
Services Creates Employee manages geotechni-
Opportunities cal and construction
Engineering materials testing
Consulting projects for ECS Manassas and holds a
Services (ECS), an master’s in civil engineering from the
employee-owned University of Maryland and a bachelor’s in
firm specializing in civil engineering from Kwame Nkrumah
geotechnical engi- University of Science and Technology
neering, environ- (KNUST), Kumasi, Ashanti, Ghana.
mental consulting,
construction mate- Also recently
rials testing, and facilities engineering appointed principal
services, is pleased to announce the pro- engineer, Steve
motion of several key employees. Adamchak will serve
Bryan Layman has been appointed as a geotechnical
Chantilly branch manager. With more manager for ECS
than 25 years of leadership and man- projects based in
agement experience, Layman provides Washington, DC,
geotechnical consulting for the design Arlington, VA, and
and construction of multiple project Montgomery County, MD. Adamchak
types throughout northern VA and the DC earned his master’s and bachelor’s degrees
Metro region. Layman holds a bachelor’s in civil engineering from Virginia
degree in civil engineering (with a Polytechnic Institute and State University.
geotechnical emphasis) from Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University.
“We’re Looking Out for You!”
The Geo-Institute Organizational Member Council (OMC) invites 1

your organization to join us. Enjoy the numerous benefits that G-I
organizational membership offers, including the following:

• Up to a 50 percent discount on the G-I annual Geo-Congress

for one person.

• A 5 percent discount for advertising in GEOSTRATA magazine.

• Forty percent ($400) of your annual G-I OM dues goes directly to fund 2

G-I student activities. A portion of that money finances student travel to

the annual Geo-Congress and the OM/Student Career Fair.

• Each year during the annual Geo-Congress, the OMC hosts an OM

Career Fair/Reception. Two OM members from each OM firm are invited
to participate, along with 45-50 students carefully chosen by the OMC.

• Opportunity to publish news about your company, including awards, 3

new staff and promotions, company projects, etc.

• Your company logo posted on the G-I website at geoinstitute.org/

membership/organizational-membership.

• Your company name listed in Organizational Member News in each

issue of GEOSTRATA magazine.
4
• Opportunity to display the G-I logo on your website and on printed
materials.

• Opportunity to display a G-I Organizational Member placard at your

exhibit booth.

For more information, visit the G-I website at geoinstitute.org/

membership/organizational-membership, where you can download the 5
Organizational Membership application.

1 Jay Beech 2 Michelle Bolding 3 John Bischoff

4 James D. Hussin 5 Stanley Boyle 6 Kord Wissmann

www.asce.org/geo 75
 G-I ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBER NEWS

Recently designated Manol P. Andonyadis principal oversight of geotechnical and

as a principal engi- has been promoted construction materials testing services for
neer, Michael to senior vice presi- ECS in the City of Alexandria and the
Bianchino has been dent and director of Southern Maryland region. He received his
selected to lead the the Mid-Atlantic bachelor’s degree in civil engineering from
team that performs Central region. Virginia Military Institute.
geotechnical studies, Andonyadis has
testing, observation, more than 27 years The newly-created
and related services of engineering expe- role of Mid-Atlantic
on a variety of project types in Washington, rience. He holds a bachelor’s degree in civil chief engineer will be
DC, Arlington, VA, and Montgomery engineering, a master’s degree in civil engi- held by Karl A. Higgins,
County, MD. An employee of ECS since neering and environmental engineering, III. Higgins provides
2011, Bianchino holds a bachelor’s in civil and an MBA. high-level technical
engineering (with a concentration in geo- expertise for complex
technical engineering) from Rensselaer John Hicks has been projects, and plays a
Polytechnic Institute. promoted to princi- key role in helping
pal engineer and staff engineers develop their project manage-
leads ECS National ment skills throughout the Mid-Atlantic
Harbor/City of subsidiary. Mr. Higgins holds a master’s degree
Alexandria opera- in engineering in geotechnics and a bachelor’s
tions. An ECS in civil engineering.
employee since
2004, Hicks provides

GEO-INSTITUTE ORGANIZATIONAL MEMBERS

Visit us at geoinstitute.org/membership/organizational-membership

j AECOM j D’Appolonia jG
 eoStabilization jM
 alcolm Drilling jS
 chnabel Foundation
j Advanced j Datgel International Company, Inc. Company
Construction j Densification, Inc. jG
 eosyntec jM
 cKinney Drilling j Sentez Insaat Ltd. Sti.
Techniques, Inc. Consultants Company j Shannon & Wilson
jE
 CS Corporate
j Agru America, Inc. Services j Geotechnology, Inc. j Menard, Inc. jS
 oil and Materials
j AMEC j FECON JSC j Golder Associates, Inc. j Moretrench Engineers, Inc.
j Ardaman & Associates, jF
 udo Construction, j HNTB Corporation j NTH Consultants, Ltd. jS
 pecrete-IP
Inc. Inc. j Haley & Aldrich, Inc. jN
 icholson Incorporated
j Arup j Fugro Consultants LP j Hayward Baker, Inc. Construction j Stantec
j Atlas EPS Company j Strata Systems, Inc.
j GRL Engineers, Inc. j HUESKER, Inc.
j Bechtel j PB Americas, Inc. jS
 ubsurface
j GZA j Insulfoam
j Bentley Systems jT
 he Reinforced Earth Constructors, Inc.
jG
 eoEnvironmental, j Jafec USA, Inc.
Company jT  enCate
j Berkel and Company Inc. j Kelchner
Contractors, Inc. jR
 embco Geotechnical Geosynthetics
j Gannett Fleming, Inc. j Kleinfelder, Inc Contractors, Inc. j Tensar International
j Braun Intertec j GeoEngineers, Inc. j Langan Engineering j Richard Goettle, Inc.
Corporation j Terracon, Inc.
j Geo-Instruments, Inc. & Environmental
j CH2M Hill j RocScience jT
 erra Insurance
j Geokon, Inc. Services, Inc.
j ConeTec, Inc. j S&ME, Inc. Company
jG
 eopier Foundation jL
 ayne
j DBM Contractors, Inc. GeoConstruction jS
 anborn, Head & jT
 olunay-Wong
Company
Associates, Inc. Engineers, Inc.
j Dan Brown and j Geo-Solutions, Inc. j Loadtest, Inc.
Associates, Inc. j Schnabel Engineering j URS Corporation
jM
 agnus Pacific
Corporation jZ
 ETAS Zemin
Teknolojisi A.S.

76 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 COREBITS EVERYTHING G-I

Geo-Institute Announces
New Director
The Geo-Institute of ASCE announces that it has hired Brad Keelor as its new director. Keelor
is a seasoned non-profit and government professional with extensive experience working with
society leadership and member volunteers on a variety of issues.
With seven years of experience spent at three technical and scientific societies in a variety of
government relations, careers, continuing education, and K-12 education roles, Keelor has also
helped to develop UK-US research partnerships in numerous scientific and technical disciplines.
Keelor holds a BS in international relations from Saint Joseph’s University and an MA in interna-
tional commerce and policy from George Mason University.
His most recent employment was with the British Embassy in Washington, DC, as its senior
science and innovation policy advisor, and with the Society of Neuroscience as government
and public affairs manager. Keelor has also worked for the American Geophysical Union and the
American Institute of Aeronautics.

COREBITS CHAPTERS
Boston Chapter Hosts Charles C. Ladd
Memorial Lecture
The Boston G-I John T. Germaine, a significant modification to the SHANSEP
Chapter is very PhD, M.ASCE, was equation, developed by Charles Ladd and
active in providing the first such lec- Roger Foott, and created a need for a
professional devel- turer and spoke on new generation of soil models. The lec-
opment oppo­r- the results of an ture was very well received and attended
tunities to its extensive experi- by more than 100 in the local engineer-
members and the mental program ing community.
Charles C. Ladd
local community. that establishes a In addition, the Boston Chapter has
In November, the new understanding prepared a full line-up of lectures for
Chapter hosted the first Charles C. Ladd of the variation in behavior as a function the coming year, including a talk about
Memorial Lecture. The Charles C. Ladd of stress and plasticity. Trends in the Port of Miami tunnel. Please contact
Memorial Fund was established in 2015 to mechanical behavior are very consistent Boston Chapter Chair Jon Davies at
support a lecture presented biennially by with liquid limit. One important outcome jonathan.davies@hatchmott.com for more
an eminent academic or practitioner on a is the observation that clay-rich sedi- event information.
topic related to soil behavior and con- ments do not follow the rules of
struction on soft ground. normalized behavior. This has resulted in

www.asce.org/geo 77
 COREBITS INDUSTRY

Geotechnical &
Structural Engineering
Congress 2016
This year’s joint Geotechnical & Structural Engineering
Congress 2016 on February 14–17 in Phoenix, AZ, will feature
Ron Freidman, PhD, as keynote speaker at the opening ple-
nary. He will discuss his latest research in the emerging science
of workplace excellence to reveal key practices that position
companies and organizations to thrive.
The Karl Terzaghi Plenary Lecture is a joint GI–SEI event
that will feature Thomas D. O’Rourke, PhD, Hon.D.GE,
Dist.M.ASCE. This year’s Terzaghi Lecture keynote topic is
Ron Freidman “Ground Deformation Effects on Subsurface Pipelines and
Infrastructure System.”
Visit the Joint Congress website at geo-structures.org for
more information.

The Bay Tunnel

Receives Tunnel
Achievement Award
The Bay Tunnel has been successfully completed and is delivering
high-quality and reliable water to residents. As a result of its
success, it received the Tunnel Achievement Award for Project
Thomas D. O’Rourke Excellence. The award was formally presented at the Tunneling
Short Course at the Colorado School of Mines in Golden, CO.
Completed ahead of schedule through the San Francisco Bay
in difficult ground conditions and within environmentally sensi-
tive habitats, the Bay Tunnel is significant in that it is the first-ever
bored tunnel under the San Francisco Bay. It replaces pipelines
that were built in the 1920s and 30s that lay along the bay floor
and on trestles that cross over environmentally sensitive marsh
land. The pipe and the trestle are in a deteriorated condition.

78 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 The Bay Tunnel extends five miles under San Francisco Bay at
depths to 100 ft and was constructed using a specialized earth
pressure balance (EPB) Tunnel Boring Machine (TBM). The exca-
vated diameter is 15 ft with a bolted, gasketed, concrete liner
with a 9-ft welded steel water carrier pipeline manufactured in
50-ft lengths.
Tunnel mining began in 2012, and boring was completed
in 2013 — 6 months early. The tunnel was constructed by the
contracting team of Michels/Jay Dee/Coluccio, which was
the low bidder at $215.3 million. Construction began in April
2010 and completed in 2015. Jacobs Associates led the
tunnel design team, which also included URS, Fugro West, and
Telamon Engineering. Jacobs Engineering served as construc-
tion manager.
Ground conditions consisted primarily of the San Antonio
Formation, which contains interlayered clays, silts, and sands.
Included in the expected geology was a 700-ft-long reach
of Franciscan Complex (Basalt) bedrock, which can contain
hard and abrasive materials different from the majority of
the alignment.
The TBM launch shaft and primary work location is located
in Menlo Park on the western side of the Bay. The work shaft,
built using diaphragm slurry wall construction methods, is
approximately 58 ft in diameter and 110 ft deep. The exit shaft is
located in Newark on the eastern side of the Bay. It is approxi-
mately 28 ft in diameter and 74 ft deep.
Due to the sensitive environment and wetlands in the area
of the shaft, crews froze the ground prior to excavating the
shaft. The contractor installed 50 freeze pipes, each 128-ft
long, that formed the 28-ft diameter outer portion of the shaft,
with additional pipes installed through the center to freeze the
bottom of the shaft. The freeze was used to prevent movement
of groundwater and to avoid leakage during construction.
Challenges included difficult ground conditions, the proxim-
ity of California’s largest active seismic faults (the San Andreas
and the Hayward faults), and the presence of environmentally
sensitive habitats that precluded the option to construct
intermediate shafts.
In October 2014, city officials gathered at the Pulgas Water
Temple — the spot where the waters from the Hetch Hetchy
Reservoir end their 160-mile journey as they enter the Crystal
Springs Reservoir on the San Francisco Peninsula — to celebrate
the flow of water through the Bay Tunnel.
Documentation-Management Fundamentals:
Newest GBA Best Practices Monograph Provides
the Basics
”If it isn’t in writing, it didn’t happen.” Those opening lines of
the Geoprofessional Business Association’s (GBA’s) new GBA
Best Practices monograph — Documentation-Management
Fundamentals — aptly describe the focus of the publication and
its goal of describing in broad-brush terms the why, how, who,
when, and where of an effective documentation-management
policy.
The new GBA Best Practices comprises two principal
sections: “What Makes Documentation So Important? Is Your
Organization Treating It That Way?” and “Elements of an
Effective Documentation-Management Program.” Some of
the issues included in the latter section — the larger of the
two — include the importance of written guidance about what
needs to be put into writing, the format for note-taking, proper
file-review procedures, and purging working documents at
project close-out.
GBA Best Practices monographs are available only to
GBA members, without charge. Members can download
Documentation-Management Fundamentals from the GBA
website, geoprofessional.org, or by contacting the organization
at info@geoprofessional.org or 301/565-2733.
Symposium in Honor of I.M. Idriss
The contributions of I.M. (Ed) Idriss, PhD, PE, NAE, Dist.M.ASCE,
to geotechnical earthquake engineering will be honored at a
one-day symposium at the University of California at Davis on
June 17, 2016. Proceeds from the symposium will go to the
www.asce.org/geo 79
 COREBITS INDUSTRY
Mariam and Izzat M. Idriss Endowment Fund for Geotechnical
Engineering Education. This endowment supports educational
activities that enrich graduate school experiences in geotechni-
cal engineering.
GBA Spring Conference in Dallas
The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) is preparing
for its spring conference in Dallas, TX, April 14-16, 2016. The
theme of the conference is “Optimizing Performance for Our
Firms and Our Clients: Professionalism in Motion.”
For registration information, please visit the GBA website
at geoprofessional.org or contact the organization at info@
geoprofessional.org or 301/565-2733.
Pile Dynamics Releases Complimentary Update
of GRLWEAP Program
GRLWEAP — Wave Equation Analysis of Piles — is the most
widely used software for the simulation of the pile driving
process and for establishing the driving criterion. For each
assumed pile capacity, it calculates the corresponding driving
resistance (blow count) and stresses during driving, helps check
the adequacy of pile driving equipment, and is also helpful for
designing dynamic load tests on drilled foundations.
A key feature of GRLWEAP is its database of almost 1,000
pre-programmed pile-driving hammers. Pile Dynamics recently
performed a major update of the database, working closely with
hammer manufacturers to incorporate the latest information on
efficiency and other important characteristics.
The latest database is part of GRLWEAP 2010-6, which
includes other improvements to the software, as well as help
functions. The upgrade to version 2010-6 is complimentary
for those with licenses of GRLWEAP-2010 (either standard or
Offshore Wave versions).
A detailed description of the upgrade, and the maintenance
upgrade itself, are available on pile.com/grlweap. All users are
80 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
encouraged to use the latest version of this software.
Deep Foundations Institute Conferences
and Events
The Deep Foundations for Landslides/Slope Stabilization and
Tiebacks and Soil Nailing Committees are organizing a two-day
event tentatively scheduled for August 2016 in Denver, CO. The
event will feature lectures on current technologies, key design
concepts, and case histories. Abstracts are due February 5, 2016.
SuperPile ‘16 will be held in Chicago on June 7-9, 2016.
The two-day conference is being organized by nine of DFI’s
technical committees, and includes presentations on the latest
developments in driven piles, augered cast-in-place/drilled
displacement piles, micropiles, marine foundations, testing
and evaluation of foundation systems, seismic and lateral
loads, drilled shafts, ground improvement, and helical piles and
tiebacks.
The DFI 2016 International Conference on Deep
Foundations, Seepage Control, and Remediation is being held
on October 12-15, 2016, at the Marriott Marquis Hotel in New
York City.
G-I Shallow Foundations Committee Publishes
Technical Brochure on Shrink Well Soils
The G-I Shallow Foundations Committee has published
a technical brochure entitled Living with Shrink Swell
Soils – A Homeowner’s Guide to Maintenance of Shallow
Foundations. The brochure can be found at geoinstitute.org/
codes-and-standards/other.
GeoAmericas 2016, the Third Pan-American
Conference on Geosynthetics
GeoAmericas 2016 will be held April 10-13, 2016 at the Lowes
South Beach Hotel in Miami, FL. The conference is the third in
a series of quadrennial Pan-American conferences, and it is the
first of the series to be hosted by the North American Chapter
(NAGS) of the IGS and held in North America. The conference
will draw environmental, geotechnical, and civil engineers from
throughout the Americas for a four-day event, including: short
courses, training lectures, technical sessions, panel discussions,
and of course, social and networking events. The theme of
the conference is “Geosynthetics in the Americas.” Please visit
geoamericas2016.org for more information.
GeoAmericas 2016 will be where everything geo and beyond
happens in 2016! Hosted in easy to reach Miami Beach, Florida,
GA16 is designed to provide a comprehensive and diverse offering
which will range from introductory to state of research. The theme
is “Geosynthetics in the Americas,” and multiple special sessions
have been arranged to further the depth of information.
Sign up for the GeoAmericas Newsletter at:
www.GeoAmericas2016.org
13 SHORT COURSES, INCLUDING
Geosintéticos 101 – Augusto Alza (Spanish)
Reinforced Soil Integrated Bridge System
(GRS-IBS) Para Accelerar la Construccion
de Puentes – Daniel Alzamora y Jorge
Zornberg (Spanish & English)
Unpaved Roads Design / Uso y Diseño
de Geosintéticos en Caminos de Bajo
Volumen Sin y Con Pavimentación
– Gordon Keller y Daniel Alzamora
(Spanish & English)
Quality Assurance of MSE Walls
– George y Robert Koerner (English)
Advances in Heap Leach Design
– Mark Smith, Denys Parra, Abigail Beck
(English and Spanish)
KEYNOTE ADDRESSES, INCLUDING
Robert Koerner – Author of Designing with
Geosynthetics & Founder of the Geosynthetics
Research Institute
Dale Morris – Director of the Dutch
Government’s Water Management efforts in the
United States focused on broad “sustainability”
topics: flood protection and flood risk mitigation,
coastal and floodplain restoration, ecosystem
resiliency, urban adaptation, urban water
management, and landscape design for risk
reduction and environmental/public amenity.
Jorge Zornberg – presenting the renowned
Mercer Lecture
GeoAmericas2016.org
auspices of the
49 SESSIONS, INCLUDING
Technical Sessions: All of the traditional themes plus: Best Papers, Student Awards,
Sustainability, Infrastructure, Issues, Coastal Protection, and more
Panel Discussions: The Future of Geosynthetics, Advancement in Geosynthetic
Design, Industry Leaders Addressing Young Members’ Career Development, and more
Training Lectures:
• Seismic Design of Geosynthetics in Waste Containment – Dr. Edward Kavazanjian
• Geosynthetic-Reinforced Pavements – Dr. Jorge Zornberg
• Factors Affecting the Performance of GCLs Both Alone and in Composite
Liners – Dr. Kerry Rowe
• NCMA SRW Design, Inspection and Construction Best Practices – Don Armstrong
• Geosynthetic Reinforced Embankments on Soft Foundations – Dr. Robert Holtz
OTHER TECHNICAL ACTIVITIES
IAGI Proctor Training. Attendees will learn how to administer the Certified Welding
Technician (CWT) test (written & hands on). Study materials and the test are available in
Spanish & Portuguese.
3-hour Technical Sales Seminar. This workshop is included in all registrations and
follows the close of the exhibition. It is offered as a benefit to exhibitors and attendees
who would like to brush-up on their technical sales skills.
Meetings SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
• IGS Technical Committees: Hydraulics, Soil Havana Nights Beach
Reinforcement, Filtration, Barriers, and Mining Front Social
• Geosynthetic Institute (GSI) Board Meeting
Exhibition Opening
• IGS Chapter Presidents’ Meeting Reception
• Fabricated Geomembrane Institute (FGI) Board Meeting Beach Volleyball
• International Association of Geosynthetic Installers Companion & Family
(IAGI) Board Meeting Programs (e.g., Art Walks,
• GMA Focus Groups: Erosion Control, Everglades Tour)
Geotextiles, Geogrids South Beach Night Life
• Erosion Control Technology Council (ECTC) Board
Meeting
• IGS Chapter Secretaries’ Meeting
| Contact: Becky Slaybaugh | BSlaybaugh@Minervatri.com | +1.561.768.9487 | v102115
Under the
The 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics is hosted by the North American Geosynthetics Society (NAGS),
managed by Minerva – Technology, Resources & Information, and held Under the Auspices of the IGS.
COREBITS CAREER
ASCE/G-I Co-Sponsored Online Live Webinars j Dam Breach Analysis Using HEC-RAS
All posted webinars offer 1.5 professional development hours (PDHs). February 3–5, 2016 – Las Vegas, NV
j In-Situ Stabilization of Soil Slopes Using Nailed j Earthquake-Induced
 Ground Motions
(or Anchored) Geosynthetics – NEW February 11–12, 2016 – N
 ashville Metro Area, TN
January 20, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (ET)
j Soil
 and Rock Slope Stability
j Approaches to Grouting in Karst – NEW March 3–4, 2016 – Brentwood, TN
January 28, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (ET)
j Construction
 Dewatering and Groundwater
j Energy Piles: Background and Geotechnical Control – Design and Application
Engineering Concepts March 10–11, 2016 – Denver, CO
February 5, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (ET)
j Risk-Based Seismic Design and Evaluation
j Low Mobility Grouting – NEW March 10–11, 2016 – Philadelphia, PA
February 18, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (ET)
j Deep Foundations: Design, Construction, and Quality Control
j Selected Topics Regarding Geosynthetic Clay Liners – NEW March 14–15, 2016 – Orlando, FL
February 22, 2016, 11:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (ET)
j Earth-Retaining Structures: Selection, Design, Construction,
and Inspection – Now in an LRFD Design Platform
ASCE/G-I Seminars March 17–18, 2016 – Orlando, FL
All posted seminars offer continuing education units (CEUs). 
j Design of Foundations for Dynamic Loads For more information about webinars, seminars, and on-
January 27–29, 2016 – Scottsdale, AZ demand learning, visit the ASCE Continuing Education website:
March 2–4, 2016 – Baltimore, MD asce.org/geotechnical-engineering/education-and-careers.

New from ASCE Press Internships Available

Engineering for Sustainable Are you looking for an

Human Development internship? Explore the

positions listed on the ASCE
A Guide to Successful Small-Scale Community Projects
website to help you obtain
Bernard Amadei, Ph.D., Dist.M.ASCE, NAE
the experience you need to
Introducing a further your career path.
multidisciplinary approach New opportunities are
to sustainable engineering
added all the time, so start
Addressing the role of
engineering in poverty your search today:
reduction & human careers.asce.org/
development
jobs?keywords=internship
Providing practical
guidelines for conducting
engineering projects in
developing communities

2014 | 432 pp. | List $80 / ASCE Member $60

Soft Cover: Stock # 41353 | ISBN 978-0-7844-1353-1
E-book: Stock # 47840 | ISBN 978-0-7844-7840-0

82 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016

 CONNECT WITH US

www.asce.org/geo twitter.com/GeoInstitute facebook.com/GeoInstitute LinkedInGeo GeoInstituteASCE

INDUSTRY CALENDAR
COMING IN MARCH/APRIL 2016

Geotechnical & Structural Geotechnical Frontiers

Retaining Walls & Engineering March 12-15, 2017
Earth Retention Congress 2016 Orlando, FL
February 14-17, 2016 geotechnicalfrontiers.com
As I See It: SE Licensure Phoenix, AZ
and Partial Practice Laws - geo-structures.org Geo-Risk 2017
Their Potential Impacts on June 4-7, 2017
Geotechnical Design Practice GeoAmericas 2016 Denver, CO
By Richard J. Finno
3rd Pan-American
Conference on Geosynthetics Grouting, Deep Mixing, and
April 10-13, 2016 Diaphragm Walls 2017
As I See It: Geotechnical Miami Beach, FL July 9-12, 2017
Reports in the Hands of Others geoamericas2016.org Oahu, Hawaii
By Martin Walker
4th GeoChina International 3rd International Conference
Emergency Retaining Wall Conference on Performance-Based
Replacement July 25-27, 2016 Design in Geotechnical
Shandong, China Engineering
By Joseph K. Cavey, Jim Guinther, and
geochina2016.geoconf.org July 16-19, 2017
Anthony Passaro
Vancouver, BC
Geo-Chicago 2016:
Highway Retaining Walls Are Sustainability, Energy, and GeoMEast2017
Assets the Geoenvironment July 15-19, 2017
By Mo Gabr, Cedrick Butler, William August 14-18, 2016 Sharm Elsheikh, Egypt
Rasdorf, Daniel J. Findley, and Steven Chicago, IL
A. Bert geoenvironmentconference.org PanAm-UNSAT 2017: Second
Pan American Conference on
3rd International Conference Unsaturated Soils
What’s New in Soil Nail of Transportation September 10-13, 2017
Excavation Support? Geotechnics Dallas, TX
By Carlos Lazarte September 4-7, 2016
Portugal IFCEE 2018
Lessons Learned from Failures March 13-17, 2018
of Earth Support Systems IACGE 2016 Lake Buena Vista, FL
By James W. Niehoff
October 12-13, 2016
Beijing, China Geotechnical Earthquake
Engineering and Soil
Stabilizing Variable and Sloping Rocky Mountain Geo- Dynamics V 2018
Ground Conference 2016 May 27-30, 2018
By Mark Seel and Luis Berroteran November 4, 2016 Austin, TX
Lakewood, CO
Lessons Learned from
GeoLegends: Harry G. Poulos
By Merve Gizem Bozkurt, Jiannan Chen,
For more seminar information:
Hulya Salihoglu, and Kuo Tian
asce.org/continuing-education/face-to-face-seminars

www.asce.org/geo 83
 GeoPoem
By Mary C. Nodine
Dream World
If every failure were a circle,
If all sands were uniform,
Each strata break a horizontal line,
If every clay had low plasticity,
With such elegant simplicity
We’d complete our geotechnical designs!
We’d only need one boring
To define most any site.
Solid rock would be in easy reach.
With sweet homogeneity
In every layer that we’d see,
We’d only need one grain size test in each.
No swelling clay! No wedge failures!
No secondary settlement,
For there’d be no organic clay, nor peat.
No longer would our plans be foiled
By weathered rock that acts like soil.
Our boring logs would be so clean and neat.
84 GEOSTRATA JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2016
With stratigraphy so simple
We wouldn’t need to simplify;
Our days of profile coloring would be done!
A complex site’s stress history
Would no longer be a mystery...
Though solving it IS always kind of fun.
There would be no wetlands.
No oddly weathered rock.
No rolling hills or glacially-carved lakes.
No uplifted mountain chains
To awe us time and time again...
You know, this dream world might be something I’d forsake...
I suppose it’s blood and sweat well spent
To define a complex site,
Armed with Shelby tubes and towering stacks of sieves.
We use our ingenuity
To deal with ambiguity
In the messy world of soil in which we live.
MARY C. NODINE, PE, M.ASCE, is a geotechnical poet and a project
engineer with GEI Consultants, Inc. in Woburn, MA. She can be
reached at mnodine@geiconsultants.com.
Geopier is Ground improvement®
Work with engineers to solve your ground improvement challenges

the Geopier srt system: Low-impact sLope stabiLity

The Geopier SRT® System is uniquely engineered for each project. The patented SRT Plate Pile™ method is well suited to stabilize shallow
slides or steep slopes that do not meet required stability criteria. Visit geopier.com/downloads to view success stories in your area.

• I-495 HOT Lanes Slope in Fairfax, VA

send us your project data
• Electricity Plant in New Madrid, MO Let our geotechnical engineers customize a solution that meets your
• Caltrans Route 20/HWY 5 in Williams, CA needs. Submit your project details to receive a feasibility assessment
• Pleasant Hills Slope in Pleasant Hill, CA and cost estimate at geopier.com/feasibilityrequest

800-371-7470 | info@geopier.com | geopier.com

©2016 Geopier Foundation Company, Inc. The Geopier® technology and brand names are protected under U.S. patents and trademarks listed at www.geopier.com/patents and other trademark applications and
patents pending. Other foreign patents, patent applications, trademark registrations, and trademark applications also exist.