Geotechnical Solutions for Soil Improvement, Rapid Embankment Construction, and Stabilization of the Pavement Working Platform (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

41 A p p e n d i x A The website with the end user products for each technology is available through a link on this report’s web page (www.trb .org/main/blurbs/168148.aspx). Examples of each of the end user products are provided in this appendix: • Technology fact sheet • Photographs (of technology) • Case histories • Design guidance • QC/QA procedures • Specifications • Cost information and cost estimating tool • Bibliography End User Product Examples

42 Technology Fact Sheet Technology Fact Sheet Example R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM PREFABRICATED VERTICAL DRAINS WITH AND WITHOUT FILL PRELOADING Basic Function Prefabrication Vertical Drains (PVDs) (a.k.a. wick drains) are used to accelerate the settlement and shear strength gain of saturated, soft foundation soils by reducing the drainage path length. :segatnavdA • Decreased construction time • Low cost • No spoil • High production rate • Durable • Simple QC/QA procedures General Description: Geologic Applicability: • Saturated low strength, inorganic clays and silts. • PVDs are routinely installed to depths of 100 feet (30.5 meters). • PVDs have been installed to more than 200 feet (61 meters) on some projects. :sdohteM noitcurtsnoC Installation of PVDs requires site preparation, construction of a drainage blanket and/or a working mat, and instal- lation of the drains. Site preparation includes removal of vegetation and surface debris, and obstacles that would impede installation of the PVDs. It may be necessary to construct a working mat to support construction traffic and installation rig loads, which can later serve as the drainage blanket. There are many different ways of installing PVDs, but most methods employ a steel covering mandrel that protects the PVD material as it is installed. All methods employ some form of anchoring system to hold the drain in place while the mandrel is withdrawn following insertion to the desired depth. The mandrel is penetrated into the compressible soils using either static or vibratory force. March 2012 http://www.intrans.iastate.edu/geotechsolutions/index.cfm Schematic of a prefabricated vertical drain installation PVDs are band shaped (rectangular cross-section) prod- ucts consisting of a geotextile filter material surrounding a plastic core. Fill preloading consists of placing temporary fill on top of the embankment to speed settlement in the foundation soils.

43 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM :noitamrofnI lanoitiddA tance and installation disturbance. Quality control tests usually relate to the material properties of the drain and the measurement of settlement and pore pressures during consolidation. Factors which affect the unit cost of install- ing PVDs include: the type, strength and depth of the soil, material cost, and labor cost. The installed costs of PVDs are in the range of $2.50 to $3.25 per meter. Mobiliza- tion costs will typically range from $8,000 to $10,000 plus the cost of instrumentation and installation of a drainage blanket. SHRP2 Applications: • New Embankment and Roadway Construction • Embankment Widening Example Successful Applications: Airport Runway and Taxiway Extension, Moline, IL Complementary Technologies: PVDs with a preload are typically not used in conjunction with other technologies. Alternate Technologies: Deep foundation elements, sand drains, vacuum preload- ing, stone columns, deep dynamic compaction, grouting, deep soil mixing, excavation and replacement, and light- Potential Disadvantages: • Stiff soil layers increase installation difficulty leading to increased cost. • Limited headroom can be a limitation. • Settlements observed in field generally do not match oedometer tests. Key References for this Fact Sheet: Elias, V., Welsh, J., Warren, J., Lukas, R., Collin, J.G., and Berg, R.B. (2006). “Ground Improvement Methods-Volume I.” Federal Highway Administration, Publication No. FHWA NHI-06-019. Massarsch, K.R. and Fellenius, B.H. (2005). “Deep vibra- tory compaction of granular soils.” Chapter 19 in Ground Improvement – Case Histories, Elsevier publishers, 633- 658. Rixner, J.J., Kraemer, S.R. and Smith, A.D. (1986). “Pre- fabricated Vertical Drains.” U.S. Federal Highway Admin- istration, Research, Development and Technology, Vol. I: Engineering Guidelines, Report No. FHWA/RD-86/168. Design considerations include drain spacing, flow resis- the specifications and requirements, the size of the project, weight fill. Technology Fact Sheet Example (continued)

44 Rapid Impact Compaction September Page 1 of 2 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM Hammer and anvil portion of rapid impact compactor. From the files of P. Becker. PH OT OG RA PH S Rapid impact compactor following first pass of compaction points. From the files of P. Becker. Photographs Example

45 Rapid Impact Compaction September Page 2 of 2 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM Rapid impact compactor in the process of compaction. From the files of P. Becker. PH OT OG RA PH S Photographs Example (continued)

46 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM PR OJ EC T CA SE H IS TO RY PR OJ EC T CA SE H IS TO RY COLUMN SUPPORTED EMBANKMENT MINNESOTA TRUNK HIGHWAY 241 WIDENING – PROJECT CASE HISTORY – Location: TH 241 near St. Michael, MN, southwest of I-94/TH 241 interchange Owner: Minnesota Department of Transportation Contractor: Engineers: Mn/DOT and The Collin Group Year Constructed: 2006 Project Summary/Scope: A pile supported embankment was constructed on Trunk Highway (TH) 241 near St. Michael, MN, about 2000 feet southwest of I-94/TH 241 interchange. This project involved widening of a highway from 2 to 4 lanes. The new embankment was a widening of an existing embankment. Differential settlement between the new embankment section and the old section was a concern. Subsurface Conditions: 30 feet of highly organic silt loams and peats underlain by about 20 feet of silty organic soils. Below that were 12 feet of loamy sand underlain by 35 feet of gravelly sand. A well cemented sandstone laid 100 feet below the ground surface. The section of highway was bordered on the northwest by a small pond and on the southeast by marshy terrain Pile spacing was 7 feet on-center and the diameter of pile caps was 2 feet. The Load Transfer Platform (LTP) embankment was designed using the beam design method. Piles consisted of steel pipes filled with concrete. Four layers of geosynthetic reinforcement were used with granular fill. The total thickness of the LTP was 3 feet (~ 1 meter). Backfilling of the embankment was completed on October 10, 2006. Instrumentation data is presented through June 4, 2007. Complementary Technologies Used: Geofoam lightweight fill, reinforced soil slope, and geosynthetic construction platform stabilization technologies were also used for this embankment widening. Case History Example

47 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM Performance Monitoring: The embankment was instrumented with 48 sensors including strain gages, earth pressure cells, and settlement systems. Settlements, geosynthetic strains, and pile strains/loads are presented in the technical paper for an approximately 18- month period following construction. A finite element analysis was performed using STRAND7. Instrumentation results are compared with the finite element analysis. Case History Author/Submitter: Rich Lamb, P.E. Foundations Engineer Mn/DOT Office of Materials, Mailstop 645 1400 Gervais Avenue Maplewood, MN 55109 Rich.Lamb@dot.state.mn.us Project Technical Paper: Wachman, G.S., Biolzi, L. and Labuz, J.F. (2010). “Structural behavior of a pile- supported embankment,” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 136, No. 1, pp 26-34. Date Case History Prepared: 21 July 2010 Case History Example (continued)

48 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 1 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE Preferred Design Procedure The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has a set of design documents for this technology. The documents are summarized below. Publication Title Publication Year Publication Number Available for Download Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines 2009 Vol. I – FHWA- NHI-10-024, and Vol. II – FHWA- NHI-10-025 Yes1 1 Link: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/retaining/100317.cfm Summary of Design/Analysis Procedure: Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Current FHWA Reference(s): Berg et. al (2009) Supporting Reference(s): AASHTO (2010) Tanyu et. al (2008) The Load Resistance Factor Design (LRFD) Method utilizes limit equilibrium analysis to determine the geometric and reinforcement requirements to prevent internal and external failure. Material resistance and uncertainty in applied loads are accounted for separately in the LRFD method making the geotechnical analysis more consistent with structural design. The LRFD method has four different limit states. These limit states represent distinct structural performance criteria: (1) strength limit states, (2) serviceability limit states, (3) extreme-event limit states, and (4) fatigue limit states Most geotechnical MSE wall projects will utilize strength of service limit states with a check of serviceability limit states. Walls subjected to earthquakes or large vehicle loads are also designed for extreme-event limit states. The following is a summary for the design of mechanically stabilized earth walls as presented in the FHWA document. Table 1 summarizes the required inputs and outputs used in the LRFD procedure. STEP 1. Establish the geometric, loading, and performance requirements for design. A. Geometry a. Wall heights b. Wall batter c. Backslope d. Toe slope Design Guidance Example

49 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 2 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE B. Loading Conditions a. Soil surcharges b. Live (transient) load surcharges c. Dead (permanent) load surcharges d. Loads from adjacent structures that may influence the internal or external stability of MSE wall system, e.g., spread footings, deep foundations, etc. e. Seismic f. Traffic barrier impact C. Performance Criteria a. Design code (e.g., AASHTO LRFD 2007) b. Maximum tolerable differential settlement c. Maximum tolerable horizontal displacement d. Design life e. Construction constraints STEP 2. Establish project parameters. A. The following must be defined by the agency (Owner) and/or the designer: a. Existing and proposed topography i. Subsurface conditions across the site 1. Engineering properties of foundation soils ( f, c’f, ’f, cu) ii. Groundwater conditions b. Reinforced backfill – engineering properties of the reinforced soil volume ( r, ’r) c. Retained backfill – engineering properties of the retained fill ( b, c’b, ’b), addressing all possible fills (e.g., in-situ, imported, on-site, etc.). Cohesion in the retained backfill is usually assumed to be equal to zero. See FHWA Earth Retaining Structures reference manual (Tanyu et al. 2008) for guidance on value of cohesion and calculation of the lateral pressure if a cohesion value is used in design Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-9 to 4-10. STEP 3. Estimate wall embedment depth and reinforcement length. A. The process of sizing the structure begins by determining the required embedment and the final exposed wall height, the combination of which is the full design height, H, for each section or station to be investigated. Use of the full height condition is required for design as this condition usually prevails in bottom-up constructed structures, at least to the end of construction. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-11. Design Guidance Example (continued)

50 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 3 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE STEP 4. Define nominal loads. A. The primary sources of external loading on an MSE wall are the earth pressure from the retained backfill behind the reinforced zone and any surcharge loadings above the reinforced zone. Thus, the loads for MSE walls may include loads due to horizontal earth pressure (EH), vertical earth pressure (EV), live load surcharge (LS), and earth surcharge (ES). Water (WA) and seismic (EQ) should also be evaluated if applicable. Stability computations for walls with a near vertical face are made by assuming that the MSE wall acts as a rigid body with earth pressures developed on a vertical pressure plane at the back end of the reinforcements. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-11 to 4-17. STEP 5. Summarize load combinations, load factors, and resistance factors. A. Maximum permanent loads, minimum permanent loads, and total extremes should be checked for a particular load combination for walls with complex geometry and/or loadings to identify the critical loading. B. Live loads are not used on specific design steps since they contribute to stability. These are identified in subsequent design steps. C. Resistance factors for external stability and for internal stability are presented in respective design step discussions that follow. Internal stability resistance factors are listed later. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-17 to 4-18. STEP 6. Evaluate external stability. A. As with classical gravity and semigravity retaining structures, four potential external failure mechanisms are usually considered in sizing MSE walls: a. Sliding on the base b. Limiting eccentricity (formerly known as overturning) c. Bearing resistance d. Overall/global stability Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-18 to 4-31. STEP 7. Evaluate internal stability. A. The step by step internal design process is as follows: a. Select a reinforcement type (inextensible or extensible). b. Select the location of the critical failure surface. Design Guidance Example (continued)

51 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 4 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE c. Select a reinforcement spacing compatible with the facing. d. Calculate the maximum tensile force at each reinforcement level, static and dynamic. e. Calculate the maximum tensile force at the connection to the facing. f. Calculate the pullout capacity at each reinforcement level. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-31 to 4-59. STEP 8. Design of facing element. A. Facing elements are designed to resist the horizontal forces developed. Reinforcement is provided to resist the maximum loading conditions at each depth in accordance with structural design requirements in Section 5, 6, and 8 of AASHTO (2007) for concrete, steel, and timber facings, respectively. The embedment of the soil reinforcement to panel connector must be developed by test to ensure it can resist the TMAX loads. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-58 to 4-59. STEP 9. Assess overall/global stability. A. This design step is performed to check the overall, or global, stability of the wall. Overall stability is determined using rotational or wedge analyses, as appropriate, to examine potential failure planes passing behind and under the reinforced zone. Analyses can be performed using a classical slope stability analysis method with standard slope stability computer programs. In this step, the reinforced soil wall is considered analogous to a rigid body and only failure surfaces completely outside a reinforced zone (e.g., global failure planes) are considered. Computer programs that directly incorporate reinforcement elements (e.g., ReSSA) can be used for analyses that investigate both global and compound failure planes. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-59 to 4-61. STEP 10. Assess compound stability. A. Additional slope stability analyses should be performed for MSE walls to investigate potential compound failure surfaces, i.e., failure planes that pass behind or under or through a portion of reinforced soil zone. For simpler structures with rectangular geometry, relatively uniform reinforcement spacing, and a near vertical face, compound failures passing through both the unreinforced and reinforced zones will not generally be critical. B. However, if complex conditions exist such as changes in reinforced soil types or reinforcement lengths, high surcharge loads, seismic loading, sloping faced structures, Design Guidance Example (continued)

52 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 5 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE significant slopes at the toe or above the wall, or stacked (tiered) structures, compound failures must be considered. Additional information can be found on FHWA manual page 4-61 to 4-64. STEP 11. Wall drainage system. A. Drainage is a very important aspect in the design and specification of MSE walls. The Agency should detail and specify drainage requirements for vendordesigned walls. Furthermore, the Agency should coordinate the drainage design and detailing (e.g., outlets) within its own designers and with the vendor. a. Subsurface drainage must be addressed in design. The primary component of an MSE wall is soil. Water has a profound effect on soil, as it can both decrease the soil shear strength (i.e., resistance) and increase destabilizing forces (i.e., load). Thus, FHWA recommends drainage features be required in all walls unless the engineer determines such feature is, or features are, not required for a specific project or structure. b. Surface drainage is an important aspect of ensuring wall performance and must be addressed during design and during construction. Appropriate drainage measures to prevent surface water from infiltrating into the wall fill should be included in the design of a MSE wall structure. c. Potential scour in walls greatly affects wall performance and should be addressed with additional detailing considerations if there is an issue. The wall embedment depth must be below the Agency-predicted scour depth. Wall initiation and termination detailing should be considered and be designed to prevent scour. Riprap may be used to protect the base and ends of a wall. The reinforced wall fill at the bottom of the structure may be wrapped with a geotextile filter to minimize loss of fill should scour exceed design predictions. Design Guidance Example (continued)

53 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 6 of 7 DESIGN GUIDANCE Table 1. Typical inputs and outputs for design and analysis procedures. Performance Criteria/Indicators Design code (e.g., AASHTO LRFD 2007) Maximum tolerable differential settlement Maximum tolerable horizontal displacement Design life Construction constraints Subsurface Conditions Engineering properties of foundation soils ( f, c'f, 'f, cu) Groundwater conditions Loading Conditions Soil surcharges Live (transient) load surcharges Dead (permanent) load surcharges Loads from adjacent structures that may influence the internal external stability of MSE wall system Seismic Traffic barrier impact Material Characteristics MSE Wall materials – classification properties MSE Wall materials – shear strength properties MSE Wall materials – chemical and biological factors that may be detrimental to reinforcement Geosynthetic – tensile strength Geosynthetic – load versus strain properties Geosynthetic – reinforcement modulus Geosynthetic – soil-geosynthetic interface friction angle Construction Techniques Subgrade preparation Geosynthetic placement procedures Fill placement, spreading, and compaction procedures Low ground pressure equipment Staged construction Construction monitoring Geometry Wall/Slope height Wall/Slope length Spacing between reinforcement layers (s) Length of reinforcement (L) Wall/Slope face angle Design Guidance Example (continued)

54 MECHANICALLY STABILIZED EARTH WALLS December 9, 2011 Page 7 of 7 G02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM DESIGN GUIDANCE References Berg, R.R., Christopher, B.R. and Samtani, N. (2009). “Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Slopes, Design and Construction Guidelines, Vol. I - FHWA-NHI-10-024, Vol. II – FHWA-NHI-10-025, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. AASHTO (2007). LRFD Bridge Design Specifications. 4th Edition, with 2008 and 2009 Interims, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C. Tanyu, B.F., Sabatini, P.J. and Berg, R.R. (2008). Earth Retaining Structures, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., FHWA-NHI-07-071, 2008. Design Guidance Example (continued)

55 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 1 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES Preferred QC/QA Procedures The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides QC/QA guidance to assure the strength and serviceability requirements of geosynthetics in pavement separation. It also gives guidance for the proper construction of the pavement system. The documents are summarized below. Publication Title Publication Year Publication Number Available for Download Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements 2006 FHWA NHI-05- 037 Yes1 Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines 2008 FHWA NHI-07- 092 No 1 http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/engineering/geotech/pubs/05037/05037.pdf There are many QC/QA procedures necessary to ensure a proper performance of the geosynthetics in separation applications. Verification of material properties and exhumation for property evaluation are used for both quality control and quality assurance while dust collection and rut measurement are used for quality assurance. GPR and FWD testing can evaluate pavement layer thickness, moisture distribution, and/or resilient modulus quickly and inexpensively; therefore, they can be used to confirm the benefit of geosynthetic separation and estimate the remaining service life of pavements. In Addition, they provide guidance to select appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation activities. QC/QA Procedures Example

56 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 2 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Guidelines The geotextiles and the threads used in joining geotextiles by sewing shall meet the chemical composition requirements. Fibers used in the geotextile and the threads shall consist of long chain synthetic polymers with at least 95% polyolefins or polyesters by weight. The strength and serviceability requirements of the geotextile for separation in pavement systems can be verified per ASSHTO M288 (1997), Holtz et al. (2008), and state guidance based on the subgrade soil properties. Geotextile labeling, shipment, and storage shall follow ASTM D4873. The QC/QA guidance in ASSHTO M288 (1997) and Holtz et al. (2008) ensures proper geotextile placement, overlapping, aggregate placement, and compaction. For performance evaluation, the rut measurement is taken directly on the field and an average rut depth is calculated. A linear or nonlinear correlation curve is used to describe the relationship between the development of rutting and cumulative ESALS to predict the service life of the pavement. Although not standard practice, GPR and FWD testing can be used for both quality control and quality assurance. GPR and FWD testing can evaluate pavement layer thickness, moisture distribution, and/or resilient modulus quickly and inexpensively, therefore, they can be used to confirm the benefit of geosynthetic separation, to estimate the remaining service life of pavements, and provide guidance to select appropriate maintenance and rehabilitation activities. Exploratory excavations (test pits) can be used to observe the conditions of the pavement layers, ground water, and geosynthetics. Several in-situ tests (pocket penetrometer, Torvane, and nuclear densiometer tests) can be performed to determine the subgrade soil conditions. The samples of base and subgrade soils and geosynthetics are also collected for laboratory tests. The laboratory tests, such as moisture content and particle size distribution on the soil samples, and permittivity and wide-width tensile strength test on the exhumed geotextile, can be performed. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

57 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 3 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Methods Table 1 below presents the objectives of the QC/QA monitoring. Individual QC/QA methods are discussed in more detail on the following pages. Table 1. Objectives of QC/QA monitoring. Topics Results Existing QC/QA procedures & measurement values Q C Material Related Base coarse and subgrade soil properties: CBR, permeability, moisture content, and grain size distribution. Geosynthetic properties: chemical composition of geosynthetic fiber, grab strength, sewn seam strength, tear strength, puncture strength, permittivity, apparent opening size, and UV stability (retained strength). Process Control Labeling, shipment, and storage, placement of a geosynthetic, placement and compaction of a base coarse, width of geosynthetic overlap or seam, and minimum aggregate thickness above geosynthetics. Q A Material Related Moisture content, grain size distribution, pocket penetrometer, torvane, and nuclear densimeter tests. Process Control Field observation (e.g., rutting), Performance Criteria Material Parameters Resilient modulus. System Behavior Rut measurement, surface curvature index (SCI), and base damage index (BDI). Emerging QC/QA procedures & measurement values Q C Material Related Process Control Intelligent compaction control, FWD and GPR testing. Q A Material Related Instrumented (Intelligent) geosynthetics. Process Control Intelligent compaction control, FWD and GPR testing. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

58 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 4 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Method: Reference(s): Verification of Material and Its Properties AASHTO M288 (2006) Holtz et al. (2008) Method Summary To maintain the quality in the separation construction, base course and subgrade soil properties shall be verified. Geotextile and its properties shall be confirmed before laying on the prepared subgrade or subbase layer. The Contractor shall provide to the Engineer a record stating the name of the manufacturer, product name, style number, and chemical composition of the fibers. The geotextile labeling, shipment, and storage shall follow ASTM D4873. Engineer may be able to specify class of geotextile based on survivability criteria, aggregate thickness, aggregate size, and construction equipment contact pressure. Geotextile shall be verified using the laboratory tests with the strength requirements such as grab strength, sewn seam strength, puncture strength, apparent opening size etc according to ASSHTO M288 (2006). Permeability and permittivity of geotextile should be greater than those of soil. Accuracy and Precision Laboratory tests on geosynthetics, subgrade soil, and base coarse material are highly accurate, precise, and are standardized by ASTM and ASSHTO. The geosynthetic properties like most manufactured materials will take fewer tests to maintain accuracy and precision, while tests on subgrade and base course will take more tests to maintain accuracy and precision. Adequacy of Coverage Since most manufactured geosynthetic materials have small variability in properties, a limited amount of tests are enough to cover the properties of the geosynthetic used. However, for subgrade and base course, their properties are more variable and depend on the frequency of the tests. Implementation Requirements Implementation of standard ASTM tests is straightforward and easy to incorporate into a QC/QA procedure. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

59 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 5 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES General Comments Laboratory tests are the common and accurate way to maintain quality control and quality assurance of the pavement materials. Verification of material properties is well adapted for the quality control and assurance on geosynthetics used for separation in pavement systems. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

60 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 6 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Method: Reference(s): Rut Measurement Al-Qadi and Appea (2003) Guram et al. (1994) Loulizi et al. (1999) Method Summary Rutting indicates the deformation and wear of the materials in the pavement. The deformation in the pavement may be due to the reduction of the resilient modulus of the base layer. The reduction of the resilient modulus can be occurred due to the migration of the fines from the subgrade into the base material. Hence, rut measurements can be considered as a QC/QA method for the geotextile separation. The measurement can be taken on the pavement sections using a straight edge. The average rut depth for the measurement locations is calculated. A terminal rut depth is specified and the service life of the pavement sections is computed by developing a linear or nonlinear curve to describe the relationship between the development of rutting and cumulative ESALs over time for the sections. Accuracy and Precision The rut measurement is taken directly on the field and an average rut depth is calculated. A linear or nonlinear correlation curve is used to describe the relationship between the development of rutting and cumulative ESALS to predict the service life. This method indirectly evaluates the benefit of a geosynthetic separator, especially when a control section is available. Adequacy of Coverage Rut development on the surface of the pavement can be estimated. Adequacy of coverage depends on the frequency of tests and the consistency of field conditions. Implementation Requirements Measurement of the rut is a straightforward method and can be implemented easily. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

61 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 7 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES General Comments Rut measurement is an important tool to indirectly check the performance of geosynthetics as a separator in a pavement system. The serviceability ratings are useful to determine the effectiveness, or accuracy of a design. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

62 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 8 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Method: Reference(s): GPR System Al-Qadi and Appea (2003) Loulizi et al. (1999) Method Summary Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) surveys are performed on the test sections to monitor any changes in the pavement systems. An electromagnetic wave is transmitted through the pavement layers using the GPR. The depth of the hidden interface can be calculated by measuring the time of reflection of the wave and known dielectric constant of the medium above the interface. The changes in the amplitude of the reflected signal at the base/subgrade interface can be monitored to determine whether there is contamination or not due to the migration of the fines from the subgrade into the base layer. When the contamination is present, the amplitude of the reflected wave will be low because of the weak contrast between dielectric constant of the base and subgrade material. This indicates the migration of the fines from subgrade soil to base course material. GPR passes are periodically taken for the required sections of the pavement. The depth of the hidden interface in the pavement can be obtained measuring the time of reflection of the signal. The changes in amplitude are compared with the initial observed amplitude to determine contamination of the base layer with time. Accuracy and Precision Pavement thickness data by GPR are accurate as compared with those obtained through conventional core samples within 3-15% error. Adequacy of Coverage The GPR method can evaluate a wide area of a pavement section. Implementation Requirements The method is quick and cost effective. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

63 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 9 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES General Comments The GPR test is easy to implement, accurate, quick, and cost effective. It is typically used for quality assurance and evaluating completed pavement sections. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

64 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 10 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Method: Reference(s): FWD System Al-Qadi and Appea (2003) Black and Holtz (1999) Hayden et al. (1998) Loulizi et al. (1999) Method Summary A nondestructive FWD test is conducted on the pavement to estimate its structural capacity and thus its service life. The FWD equipment can apply an impulse load of 40 kN for 40 ms to simulate the traffic load on the pavement. The deflection data obtained is used to calculate the resilient moduli of the pavement layers using the back-analysis. MODULUS Version 5.0 and ELMOD programs are used for the FWD data analysis. In MODULUS, the resilient moduli of the HMA and aggregate base layers obtained in the laboratory simulating the field conditions at the time of FWD testing are fixed and the subgrade modulus is obtained by iterative back- calculations. In ELMOD, the moduli of the HMA and subgrade layers are fixed and the resilient modulus of the base layer is back-calculated. The temperature correction model developed from statistical analysis of the measured deflections and HMA mid-depth temperatures was applied to the study. The thickness of HMA used for the temperature correction model is obtained by direct measurement of the thickness of the HMA through field cores. The results of Surface Curvature Index (SCI) and Base Damage Index (BDI) for all nine sections are collected during an eight-year period and then are analyzed and corrected to a standard temperature of 25°C. The resilient moduli of the pavement layers obtained using the FWD testing are utilized to calculate the vertical compressive stress using the mechanistic approach. The stress developed under the HMA pavement surface is correlated with the rate of rutting. Accuracy and Precision The resilient moduli of the pavement layers were obtained using back-analysis. Resilient modulus is used as a design input for both the empirical and mechanistic-empirical design methods. The back-calculated modulus can be accurate if the moduli of other layers are known, but the analysis procedure does not often give the unique solution if the moduli of other layers are unknown. Adequacy of Coverage QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

65 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 11 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES FWD data can be used to determine the resilient moduli of the pavement layers and rutting rate to estimate the structural capacity and the service life of the pavement. The pavement condition can be evaluated using a reasonable number of FWD tests. Adequacy of coverage depends on the frequency of tests. Implementation Requirements This method requires a correction for temperature and assumes the moduli of any two layers simulating the same conditions at the time of FWD testing. Therefore, the implementation requirements are somewhat greater than desired. General Comments The FWD test is a common, easy to implement method of testing. It is typically used for quality assurance and evaluating completed pavement sections. This test is used to verify assumed stiffness, monitor performance over time, and to compare the sections with geosynthetics to control pavement systems. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

66 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 12 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES QC/QA Method: Reference(s): Exhumation for property evaluation Black and Holtz (1999) Guram et al. (1994) Loulizi et al. (1999) Method Summary Exploratory excavations (test pits) are made at each test section to observe the conditions of the pavement layers, ground water, and geosynthetics. Care is needed to remove the base coarse within 25 to 50 mm of the anticipated geosynthetic location to prevent the damage on the geosynthetics and intermixing of the base coarse with the subgrade layer. The samples of the base course are collected for the laboratory analysis. The geosynthetic samples were carefully removed and visual observations are recorded. Exhumed geosynthetic samples are collected for laboratory tests. Several in-situ tests (pocket penetrometer, Torvane, and nuclear densiometer tests) are performed and the samples of subgrade soils are collected for laboratory tests. Permittivity tests are performed on the exhumed geotextiles using a permeameter that was designed and constructed to evaluate the degrees of blinding and clogging of the geotextiles. Wide-width tensile strength tests are conducted on the specimens from each excavated and virgin geotextile to obtain retained strength after years of performance. Accuracy and Precision Properties of pavement materials and geosynthetics can be assessed accurately and precisely to evaluate the benefit of geosynthetic separation through a reasonable number of tests. Adequacy of Coverage Properties of pavement materials and geosynthetics can be easily accessed through a reasonable number of tests. However, the exhumation process is time-consuming and suitable for limited areas and sections. Implementation Requirements Costs are reasonable. For the exhumation, the backhoe is used to remove the pavement and some aggregate base. The remaining aggregates are removed with pick and shovel to within 25 QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

67 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 13 of 14 QC/QA PROCEDURES to 50 mm of the geotextile. The final layer is removed by hand. This makes the exhumation time-consuming. General Comments This QC/QA procedure is useful to control the performance of the pavement systems. It includes the measurements of the properties of geosynthetics after the construction of the pavements. In this procedure, the subgrade soil and base coarse conditions can be evaluated with the help of the field tests like pocket penetrometer, Torvane, and nuclear densiometer tests. This procedure is very effective as soil and geotextile properties can be determined accurately and precisely. However, it is time consuming for exhumation and material property determination. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

68 GEOSYNTHETIC SEPARATION IN PAVEMENT SYSTEMS November 19, 2011 Page 14 of 14 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM QC/QA PROCEDURES Reference (s) AASHTO. (2006). Standard Specifications for Geotextiles - M 288. Standard Specifications for Transportation Materials and Methods of Sampling and Testing, 26th Edition, American Association of State Transportation and Highway Officials, Washington, D.C. Al-Qadi, I.L. and Appea, A.K. (2003). “Eight-year of field performance of a secondary road incorporating geosynthetics at the subgrade-base interface.” Transportation Research Record No. 1849, 212-220. Black, P.J. and Holtz, R.D. (1999). “Performance of geotextile separators five years after installation.” Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 5, 404-412. Christopher, B.R., Schwartz, C., Boudreau, R. (2006). Geotechnical Aspects of Pavements. U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington DC, FHWA-NHI-05-037, 874 p. Guram, D., Marienfield, M., and Hayes, C. (1994). “Evaluation of nonwoven geotextile versus line-treated subgrade in Atoka Country, Oklahoma.” Transportation Research Record No. 1439, Washington, D.C. pp. 7-12. Hayden, S.A.; Christopher, B.R.; Humphrey, D.N.; Fetton, C.; and Dunn, P.A. (1998). “Instrumentation of reinforcement, separation and drainage geosynthetic test sections used in the reconstruction of a highway in Maine.” Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Cold Regions Engineering, 420-433. Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R., and Berg, R.R. (2008). Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines. FHWA Publication No. FHWA HI -07-092, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 592 p. Loulizi, A., Al-Qadi, I.L., Bhutta, S. A., and Flintsch, G.W. (1999). “Evaluation of geosynthetics used as separators.” Transportation Research Record No.1687, 104-111. QC/QA Procedures Example (continued)

69 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Review of Existing Specifications In total, three specifications have been collected and evaluated for geosynthetic reinforced embankments. One specification was from the Washington Department of Transportation and the other two guide specifications were from geosynthetic suppliers. All of the specifications are method specifications and are summarized in Table 1 on the following page. Because the reinforcement requirements for soft-ground embankment construction will be project-specific, the required geosynthetic properties must be updated for each project. The bidding, construction, and monitoring phases are fairly standard for this technology. The preferred specification was developed by the Washington Department of Transportation and can be found in the Geosynthetic Design & Construction Guidelines – Reference Manual (FHWA NHI-07-092), as referenced below. The specification is included with this document. This specification is also presented in Technical Summary #11 from the FHWA Ground Improvement Methods Reference Manual – Volume 2 (FHWA NHI-06-020), which presents an excerpt from Geosynthetic Design & Construction Guidelines. The specification found in the FHWA manual from the Washington Department of Transportation was the only specification indentified developed by a state department of transportation. Publication Title Publication Year Publication Number Available for Download Geosynthetic Design & Construction Guidelines – Reference Manual 2008 FHWA NHI-07- 092 No 1 1 Materials can be obtained through www.nhi.fhwa.dot.gov Specifications Example

70 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Table 1. Specification identification table. Specification Name/Number H ig h St re ng th G eo te xt ile fo r Em ba nk m en t R ei nf or ce m en t G ui de lin e Sp ec ifi ca tio n fo r Em ba nk m en t o n So ft So ils G eo sy nt he tic R ei nf or ce m en t f or Em ba nk m en t o ve r S of t S oi ls Sp ec ifi ca tio n ty pe Method approach Performance approach Combined performance/ method approach Performance level R ef er en ce s Holtz et al. (2008) Polyfelt Americas (1994) Propex Geosynthetics (2006) Performance level: 1 - Actual performance measured after construction (e.g., settlement at a specific time) and warranty provisions might be included 2 - Performance-related properties measured at end of construction (e.g., CPT, vane shear, etc.) 3 - Design properties measured during construction (e.g., modulus measured for each lift) 4 - Design-related properties measured during construction (e.g., density and water content measured for each lift) Specifications Example (continued)

71 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Summary of Example Specifications Specification Name/Number: High Strength Geotextile For Embankment Reinforcement (from Washington Department of Transportation, October 27, 1997) Reference(s): Holtz et al. (2006) The specification found in the FHWA manual from the Washington Department of Transportation was the only specification indentified developed by a state department of transportation. The bidding, construction, and monitoring phases are fairly standard for this technology. Reinforcement requirements for soft-ground embankment construction will be project specific and the required geosynthetic properties must be updated for each project. The specification would need to be modified to allow the use of geogrid reinforcement, particularly seaming and placement procedures. One possible area requiring additional consideration would be if staged construction was to be utilized in conjunction with this technology. The preferred specification could also be extended to include performance measures to control and possibly accelerate construction rates, as recommended by Holtz et al. (2008), creating a combined method/performance specification. Specification Name/Number: Guideline Specification for Embankment on Soft Soils Reference(s): Polyfelt Americas (1994) The specification presented in the Polyfelt manual is a generic guideline specification. The geotextile properties section refers to Polyfelt products, but the remainder of the specification is applicable to all geosynthetic reinforced embankment construction. Specifications Example (continued)

72 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Specification Name/Number: Geosynthetic Reinforcement for Embankment over Soft Soils, Section 31 34 19.18 [02377] Reference(s): Propex Geosynthetics (2006) The specification prepared by Propex Inc. is a generic guide specification. The accepted manufacturer section only lists Propex Inc. as acceptable, but a substitution section is also provided. The specification is applicable to all geosynthetic reinforced embankment construction. References Holtz, R.D., Christopher, B.R. and Berg, R.R. (2008). Geosynthetic Design and Construction Guidelines, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, National Highway Institute, Washington, D.C., FHWA-NHI-07-092. Polyfelt Americas (1994). Design and practice manual for geotextiles. Third Edition – USA, Polyfelt Americas, Application Engineering Group, 1000 Abernathy Road, Atlanta, GA, 12-1 – 12-16. Propex Geosynthetics (2006). “Guide Specification - Geosynthetic reinforcement for embankment over soft soils.” Propex Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, 37422, USA, Phone (800) 621-1273, obtained from Propex website, fixsoil.com, downloaded December 23, 2010. Specifications Example (continued)

73 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 5 of 10 EXAMPLE SPECIFICATION From Holtz et al. (2006) High Strength Geotextile For Embankment Reinforcement Description This work shall consist of furnishing and placing construction geotextile in accordance with the details shown in the plans, these specifications, or as directed by the Engineer. Materials Geotextile and Thread for Sewing The material shall be a woven geotextile consisting only of long chain polymeric filaments or yarns formed into a stable network such that the filaments or yarns retain their position relative to each other during handling, placement, and design service life. At least 95 percent by mass of the material shall be polyolefins or polyesters. The material shall be free from defects or tears. The geotextile shall be free of any treatment or coating which might adversely alter its hydraulic or physical properties after installation. The geotextile shall conform to the properties as indicated in Table 1. Thread used shall be high strength polypropylene, polyester, or Kevlar thread. Nylon threads will not be allowed. Geotextile Approval Source Approval The Contractor shall submit to the Engineer the following information regarding each geotextile proposed for use: Manufacturer's name and current address, Full Product name, Geotextile structure, including fiber/yarn type, and Geotextile polymer type(s). If the geotextile source has not been previously evaluated, a sample of each proposed geotextile shall be submitted to the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater for evaluation. After the sample and required information for each geotextile type have arrived at the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, a maximum of 14 calendar days will be required for this testing. Source approval will be based on conformance to the applicable values from Table 1. Source approval shall not be the basis of acceptance of specific lots of material unless the lot sampled can be clearly identified, and the number of samples tested and approved meet the requirements of WSDOT Test Method 914. Specifications Example (continued)

74 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Geotextile Properties Table 1. Properties for high strength geotextile for embankment reinforcement. Property Test Method1 Geotextile Property Requirements2 AOS ASTM D4751 0.84 mm max. (#20 sieve) Water Permittivity ASTM D4491 0.02/sec. min. Tensile Strength, min. in machine direction ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design) Tensile Strength, min. in x-machine direction ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design) Secant Modulus at 5% strain ASTM D4595 (to be based on project specific design) Seam Breaking Strength ASTM D4884 (to be based on project specific design) Puncture Resistance ASTM D4833 330 N min. Tear Strength, min. in machine and x-machine direction ASTM D4533 330 N min. Ultraviolet (UV) Radiation Stability ASTM D4355 50% Strength Retained min., after 500 Hrs in weatherometer 1 The test procedures are essentially in conformance with the most recently approved ASTM geotextile test procedures, except geotextile sampling and specimen conditioning, which are in accordance with WSDOT Test Methods 914 an 915, respectively. Copies of these test methods are available at the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, Washington. 2All geotextile properties listed above are minimum average roll values (i.e., the test result for any sampled roll in a lot shall meet or exceed the values listed). Geotextile Samples for Source Approval Each sample shall have minimum dimensions of 1.5 meters by the full roll width of the geotextile. A minimum of 6 square meters of geotextile shall be submitted to the Engineer for testing. The geotextile machine direction shall be marked clearly on each sample submitted for testing. The machine direction is defined as the direction perpendicular to the axis of the geotextile roll. The geotextile samples shall be cut from the geotextile roll with scissors, sharp knife, or other suitable method which produces a smooth geotextile edge and does not cause geotextile ripping or tearing. The samples shall not be taken from the outer wrap of the geotextile nor the inner wrap of the core. Specifications Example (continued)

75 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Acceptance Samples Samples will be randomly taken by the Engineer at the job site to confirm that the geotextile meets the property values specified. Approval will be based on testing of samples from each lot. A "lot" shall be defined for the purposes of this specification as all geotextile rolls within the consignment (i.e., all rolls sent to the project site) which were produced by the same manufacturer during a continuous period of production at the same manufacturing plant and have the same product name. After the samples and manufacturer's certificate of compliance have arrived at the Olympia Service Center Materials Laboratory in Tumwater, a maximum of 14 calendar days will be required for this testing. If the results of the testing show that a geotextile lot, as defined, does not meet the properties required in Table 1, the roll or rolls which were sampled will be rejected. Two additional rolls for each roll tested which failed from the lot previously tested will then be selected at random by the Engineer for sampling and retesting. If the retesting shows that any of the additional rolls tested do not meet the required properties, the entire lot will be rejected. If the test results from all the rolls retested meet the required properties, the entire lot minus the roll(s) which failed will be accepted. All geotextile which has defects, deterioration, or damage, as determined by the Engineer, will also be rejected. All rejected geotextile shall be replaced at no expense to the Contracting Agency. Certificate of Compliance The Contractor shall provide a manufacturer's certificate of compliance to the Engineer which includes the following information about each geotextile roll to be used: Manufacturer's name and current address, Full product name, Geotextile structure, including fiber/yarn type, Geotextile polymer type(s), Geotextile roll number, and Certified test results. Approval Of Seams If the geotextile seams are to be sewn in the field, the Contractor shall provide a section of sewn seam which can be sampled by the Engineer before the geotextile is installed. The seam sewn for sampling shall be sewn using the same equipment and procedures as will be used to sew the production seams. The seam sewn for sampling must be at least 2 meters in length. If the seams are sewn in the factory, the Engineer will obtain samples of the factory seam at random from any of the rolls to be used. The seam assembly description shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Engineer and will be included with the seam sample obtained for testing. This description shall include the seam type, stitch type, sewing thread type(s), and stitch density. Specifications Example (continued)

76 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Construction Requirements Geotextile Roll Identification, Storage, and Handling Geotextile roll identification, storage, and handling shall be in conformance to ASTM D 4873. During periods of shipment and storage, the geotextile shall be stored off the ground. The geotextile shall be covered at all times during shipment and storage such that it is fully protected from ultraviolet radiation including sunlight, site construction damage, precipitation, chemicals that are strong and acids or strong bases, flames including welding sparks, temperatures in excess of 70o C, and any other environmental condition that may damage the physical property values of the geotextile. Preparation and Placement of the Geotextile Reinforcement The area to be covered by the geotextile shall be graded to a smooth, uniform condition free from ruts, potholes, and protruding objects such as rocks or sticks. The Contractor may construct a working platform, up to 0.6 meters in thickness, in lieu of grading the existing ground surface. A working platform is required where stumps or other protruding objects which cannot be removed without excessively disturbing the subgrade are present. All stumps shall be cut flush with the ground surface and covered with at least 150 mm of fill before placement of the first geotextile layer. The geotextile shall be spread immediately ahead of the covering operation. The geotextile shall be laid with the machine direction perpendicular or parallel to centerline as shown in Plans. Perpendicular and parallel directions shall alternate. All seams shall be sewn. Seams to connect the geotextile strips end to end will not be allowed, as shown in the Plans. The geotextile shall not be left exposed to sunlight during installation for a total of more than 14 calendar days. The geotextile shall be laid smooth without excessive wrinkles. Under no circumstances shall the geotextile be dragged through mud or over sharp objects which could damage the geotextile. The cover material shall be placed on the geotextile in such a manner that a minimum of 200 mm of material will be between the equipment tires or tracks and the geotextile at all times. Construction vehicles shall be limited in size and weight such that rutting in the initial lift above the geotextile is not greater than 75 mm deep, to prevent overstressing the geotextile. Turning of vehicles on the first lift above the geotextile will not be permitted. Compaction of the first lift above the geotextile shall be limited to routing of placement and spreading equipment only. No vibratory compaction will be allowed on the first lift. Small soil piles or the manufacturer’s recommended method shall be used as needed to hold the geotextile in place until the specified cover material is placed. Should the geotextile be torn or punctured or the sewn joints disturbed, as evidenced by visible geotextile damage, subgrade pumping, intrusion, or roadbed distortion, the backfill around the damaged or displaced area shall be removed and the damaged area repaired or replaced by the Contractor at no expense to the Contracting Agency. The repair shall consist of a patch of the same type of geotextile placed over the damaged area. The patch shall be sewn at all edges. If geotextile seams are to be sewn in the field or at the factory, the seams shall consist of two parallel rows of stitching, or shall consist of a J-seam, Type Ssn-1, using a single row of Specifications Example (continued)

77 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS SPECIFICATIONS September 26, 2011 Page 9 of 10 stitching. The two rows of stitching shall be 25 mm apart with a tolerance of plus or minus 13 mm and shall not cross, except for restitching. The stitching shall be a lock-type stitch. The minimum seam allowance, i.e., the minimum distance from the geotextile edge to the stitch line nearest to that edge, shall be 40 mm if a flat or prayer seam, Type SSa-2, is used. The minimum seam allowance for all other seam types shall be 25 mm. The seam, stitch type, and the equipment used to perform the stitching shall be as recommended by the manufacturer of the geotextile and as approved by the Engineer. The seams shall be sewn in such a manner that the seam can be inspected readily by the Engineer or his representative. The seam strength will be tested and shall meet the requirements stated in this Specification. Embankment construction shall be kept symmetrical at all times to prevent localized bearing capacity failures beneath the embankment or lateral tipping or sliding of the embankment. Any fill placed directly on the geotextile shall be spread immediately. Stockpiling of fill on the geotextile will not be allowed. The embankment shall be compacted using Method B of Section 2-03.3(14)C. Vibratory or sheepsfoot rollers shall not be used to compact the fill until at least 0.5 meters of fill is covering the bottom geotextile layer and until at least 0.3 meters of fill is covering each subsequent geotextile layer above the bottom layer. The geotextile shall be pretensioned during installation using either Method 1 or Method 2 as described herein. The method selected will depend on whether or not a mudwave forms during placement of the first one or two lifts. If a mudwave forms as fill is pushed onto the first layer of geotextile, Method 1 shall be used. Method 1 shall continue to be used until the mudwave ceases to form as fill is placed and spread. Once mudwave formation ceases, Method 2 shall be used until the uppermost geotextile layer is covered with a minimum of 0.3 meters of fill. These special construction methods are not needed for fill construction above this level. If a mudwave does not form as fill is pushed onto the first layer of geotextile, then Method 2 shall be used initially and until the uppermost geotextile layer is covered with at least 0.3 meters of fill. Method 1 After the working platform, if needed, has been constructed, the first layer of geotextile shall be laid in continuous transverse strips and the joints sewn together. The geotextile shall be stretched manually to ensure that no wrinkles are present in the geotextile. The fill shall be end-dumped and spread from the edge of the geotextile. The fill shall first be placed along the outside edges of the geotextile to form access roads. These access roads will serve three purposes: to lock the edges of the geotextile in place, to contain the mudwave, and to provide access as needed to place fill in the center of the embankment. These access roads shall be approximately 5 meters wide. The access roads at the edges of the geotextile shall have a minimum height of 0.6 meters when completed. Once the access roads are approximately 15 meters in length, fill shall be kept ahead of the filling operation, and the access roads shall be kept approximately 15 meters ahead of this filling Specifications Example (continued)

78 GEOSYNTHETIC REINFORCED EMBANKMENTS September 26, 2011 Page 10 of 10 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM SPECIFICATIONS operation as shown in the Plans. Keeping the mudwave ahead of this filling operation and keeping the edges of the geotextile from moving by use of the access roads will effectively pre-tension the geotextile. The geotextile shall be laid out no more than 6 meters ahead of the end of the access roads at any time to prevent overstressing of the geotextile seams. Method 2 After the working platform, if needed, has been constructed, the first layer of geotextile shall be laid and sewn as in Method 1. The first lift of material shall be spread from the edge of the geotextile, keeping the center of the advancing fill lift ahead of the outside edges of the lift as shown in the Plans. The geotextile shall be manually pulled taut prior to fill placement. Embankment construction shall continue in this manner for subsequent lifts until the uppermost geotextile layer is completely covered with 0.3 meters of compacted fill. Measurement High strength geotextile for embankment reinforcement will be measured by the square meter for the ground surface area actually covered. Payment The unit contract price per square meter for “High Strength Geotextile For Embankment Reinforcement”, shall be full pay to complete the work as specified. Specifications Example (continued)

79 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM COLUMN SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS (Load Transfer Platform (LTP)) November 2011 Page 1 of 3 COST INFORMATION Commentary Because the scope of this technology is limited to the load transfer platform, cost information on column supported embankments is identical to geosynthetic reinforced embankments. Information regarding columns that may be used in conjunction with a column supported embankment is provided separately under the following technologies: Continuous flight auger piles Deep mixing methods Geosynthetic encased columns Micropiles Aggregate columns Vibro-concrete columns Cost Information Summary Production rates for the installation of geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platforms are highly sensitive to the delivery rate of granular material. Equipment and labor resources are easily adjusted to match the delivery rate of granular material. Information is provided on two categories of geosynthetics: first, those that are used for the load transfer platform, and second, geosynthetics that are used solely to provide a working platform for a subsequent ground improvement technology. The following table lists construction cost items associated with geosynthetic reinforced load transfer platforms used in column supported embankments, along with approximate cost ranges. Cost ranges are based on data from 2005 through 2010. Readers should carefully examine the project characteristics and constraints and determine to what degree if any these factors may influence the actual cost associated with constructing geosynthetic reinforced embankments. Cost Information Example

80 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM COLUMN SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS (Load Transfer Platform (LTP)) November 2011 Page 2 of 3 COST INFORMATION Pay Item Description Quantity Range Unit Low Unit Price High Unit Price Factors Which May Potentially Impact Costs Geosynthetics Used for Load Transfer Platform Greater Than 5,000 SY $2.50 $12.00 Geogrids are more expensive than fabrics Woven fabrics are more expensive than nonwoven fabrics Heavier fabrics cost more Smaller dimension grids and heavier grids cost more Specified lap widths impact the total quantity of material required Production rates are generally limited by the delivery rate of granular material Geosynthetics Used for Working Platforms Greater Than 5,000 SY $1.00 $3.50 Same as above Granular Fill Material Greater Than 2,500 TON $7.00 $20.00 Material specifications and haul distance will impact unit costs Haul route conditions will impact unit costs Historical Cost Information A sample of actual project costs for geosynthetics used as reinforcement is shown in the table below. Pay Item Description Quantity Unit Low Unit Price High Unit Price Average Unit Price No. of Bids Bid Date Source/Agency Geosynthetic Reinf. Found. Over Soft Soils 4,835 SY $3.13 n/a n/a 1 3/4/2009 Florida DOT Miscellaneous Geogrid Reinforcement, Type I 8,375 SY $2.70 $5.60 $4.19 7 4/23/2009 Oregon DOT Cost Information Example (continued)

81 COLUMN SUPPORTED EMBANKMENTS (Load Transfer Platform (LTP)) November 2011 Page 3 of 3 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM COST INFORMATION A sample of actual project costs for geosynthetics used in working platforms is shown in the table below. Pay Item Description Quantity Unit Low Unit Price High Unit Price Average Unit Price No. of Bids Bid Date Source/ Agency Reinforcement Grid (Biaxial, Type 2) 90,023 SY $2.53 n/a n/a 1 7/29/2009 Florida DOT Geogrid Base Reinforcement 72,000 SY $1.00 $2.40 $1.79 10 6/5/2009 Arizona DOT 28,100 SY $1.75 $3.25 $2.21 9 6/12/2009 5,735 SY $1.60 $3.50 $2.22 6 9/25/2009 Stabilization Geotextile, Special 12,320 SY $146 $4.80 $2.55 12 3/5/2010 Michigan DOT 3,210 SY $2.45 $3.25 $2.65 4 10/1/2010 Geotextile Stabilization 32,367 SY $0.84 $1.46 $1.15 6 3/25/2010 New York DOT 5,200 SY $1.09 $2.51 $1.58 8 5/20/2010 13,459 SY $1.05 $2.51 $1.46 7 6/10/2010 Special – Geogrid, Type P2 (WT:06) 6,300 SY $3.36 $3.52 $3.44 2 7/15/2010 Ohio DOT Conceptual Cost Estimating Tool Click here to open a cost estimating spreadsheet for producing a preliminary project scoping estimate. Cost Information Example (continued)

82 Conceptual Estimating Tool - Column Supported Embankment Notes to User: A. This estimating tool is provided as a means to perform an initial project scoping estimate. Use C. Cells highlighted in "burnt orange" require user input. for any other purpose is strongly discouraged. The accuracy and reliability of the estimated costs are highly dependent upon the user inputs, care should be taken to adjust inputs for D. Cells with "maroon" colored text are automatically calculated, but may be manually overridden specific project characteristics. The user assumes all risks associated with the cost estimates by the user. produced by this estimating tool. B. Guidance on unit cost ranges and potential impacts on cost is provided in the cost information summary for each technology. Users are responsible for determining appropriate unit costs. 1. Calculate the Surface Area Where Columns are to be Installed 5. Estimate the Quantity of Granular Material for the Load Transfer Platform Length (ft): 1,000 Thickness of Granular Layer (in): 36 Width (ft): 90 Estimated Density of Granular Material (lb/ft3): 120 Area (ft2): 90,000 Total Quantity of Granular Material (ton): 16,200 2. Estimate the Total Quantity of Columns to be Installed 6. Estimated Cost of Column Supported Embankment - Refer to Cost Information Summary for Typical Unit Cost Ranges and Impacts on Unit Prices Design output information required - Preliminary grid spacing and average depth of installation are necessary for this step Unit Cost Quantity Cost Estimated Longitudinal Grid Spacing (ft): 8.00 Optional, Geosynthetic for Working Platform (yd2): 2.75$ 10,000 27,500$ Estimated Transverse Grid Spacing (ft): 8.00 Optional, Granular Material for Working Platform (ton): 7.50$ 5,400 40,500$ Number of Columns to be Installed: 1,544 Input Column Type and (unit of measure): 30.00$ 77,175 2,315,250$ Average Depth of Column Installation (ft): 50 Mobilization (lump sum): 20,000.00$ 1 20,000$ Total Quantity of Columns (lf): 77,175 Geosynthetic Reinforcement (yd2): 2.75$ 30,000 82,500$ Granular Material (ton): 10.00$ 16,200 162,000$ 3. If Needed, stimate he terial equ ed or n ork latform E t Ma s R ir f a Initial W ing P Credit Embankment for Volume of the Load Transfer Platform ($/yd3): 4.00$ )000,01( (40,000)$ Length (ft): 1,000 ma o l t umnEsti ted T ta Cos of Col Supported Embankment: 2,607,750$ Width (ft): 90 ma it t umn nkment o r rEsti ted Un Cos of Col Supported Emba f r A ea T eated ($/ft2): 28.98$ Quantity of Geosynthetic for a Working Platform (yd2): 10,000 Optional, Thickness of Granular Layer for Working Platform (in): 12 Optional, Estimated Density of Granular Material for Working Platform (lb/ft3): 120 Total Quantity of Granular Material for Working Platform (ton): 5,400 4. Calculate the Surface Area of Geosynthetic Reinforced Load Transfer Platform Length (ft): 1,000 Width (ft): 90 Number of Layers of Geosynthetic Reinforcement: 3 Quantity of Geosynthetic Reinforcement (yd2): 30,000 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM Page 1 of 1 Cost Information Example (continued)

83 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 1 of 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY The references listed below were identified and utilized to complete the technology summaries, assessments, and website documents. Following the reference list is a reference matrix that provides a means of efficiently identifying the information provided in each reference. References Africon. (1997). Report on the trials at Kriel to assess the effectiveness of impact compaction and to establish appropriate methods of integrity testing. Africon Report 50444/GI/98. Auzins, N., and Southcott, P.H. (1999). “Minimizing water losses in agriculture through the application of impact rollers,” Proc., 8th Intl. Australia-New Zealand Conf. on Geomech., Hobart, Australia. Avalle, D.L. (2004a). “Use of the impact roller to reduce agricultural water loss.” Proc. 9th ANZ Conf. on Geomechanics, 8-11 February 8-11, Auckland, Australia. Avalle D. L. (2004b). “Ground improvement using the “square” impact roller – case studies.” 5th Intl. Conf. on Ground Improvement Techniques, March, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Avalle, D.L. (2004c). “Impact rolling in the spectrum of compaction techniques and equipment.” Earthworks Seminar, Australian Geomechanics Society, August, Adelaide, Australia. Avalle, D.L. (2004d). “A note on specifications for the use of the impact roller for earthworks.” Earthworks Seminar, Australian Geomechanics Society, August, Adelaide, Australia. Avalle, D.L. (2006). “Reducing haul road maintenance costs and improving tyre wear through the use of impact rollers,” Proc., Mining for Tyres – Surviving the Shortage, December 4-6, Perth, Australia. Avalle, D.L. (2007a). “Trials and validation of deep compaction using the “square” impact roller.” Australian Geomechanics Society Sydney Chapter Mini-Symposium: Advances in Earthworks, 17 October, Sydney, Australia. Avalle, D.L. (2007b). “Ground vibrations during impact rolling.” Common Ground 07, Proc., 10th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Brisbane, Australia. Avalle, D.L,. and Carter, J.P. (2005). “Evaluating the improvement from impact rolling on sand." Presented at the 6th Intl. Conf. on Ground Improvement Techniques, 18-19 July, Coimbra, Portugal. Bibliography Example

84 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 2 of 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Avalle D.L., and Grounds, R. (2004). “Improving pavement subgrade with the “square” impact roller.” Proc. 23rd Southern African Transport Conference (SATC2004), 12-15 July, Pretoria, South Africa. Avalle, D.L., and McKenzie, R.W. (2005). “Ground improvement of landfill site using the “square” impact roller.” Australian Geomechanics, Vol. 40, No. 4, 15-21. Avalle, D.L., and Young, G. (2004). “Trial Programme and Recent Use of the Impact Roller in Sydney.” Earthworks Seminar, Australian Geomechanics Society, August, Adelaide, Australia. Avsar, S., Bakker, M., Bartholomeeusen, G., and Vanmechelen, J. (2006). “Six sigma quality improvement of compaction at the new Doha international airport project.” Terra et Aqua, No. 103, June, 14-22. Bouazza, A., and Avalle, D.L. (2006a). “Effectiveness of rolling dynamic compaction on an old waste tip.” ISSMGE 5th Intl. Congress on Environmental Geotechnics, 26-30 June, Cardiff, Wales, United Kingdom. Bouazza, A., and Avalle, D.L. (2006b). “Verification of the effects of rolling dynamic compaction using a continuous surface wave system.” Australian Geomechanics, Vol. 41, No. 2, pp. 101-108. Broons (2009). “Square” impact rollers – Specifications Brochure, Broons Sales, Hire & Engineering, Woodville, South Australia. < http://www.broons.com/impact/broons_impact.pdf> (Date Accessed August 2009). Burgess, I.G., and Joubert, J. (1995). “A low cost road system utilizing in-depth compaction of in-situ material,” Paper No. 28, Proceedings of International Road Federation (IRF) Conference, Organized by South African Road Federation (SARF) in co-operation with United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), Johannesburg, South Africa. Clegg, B., and Berrangé, A.R. (1971). “The development and testing of an impact roller,” Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ. Engs. Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 65-73. Clifford, J.M. (1978) “The impact roller – problems solved,” Trans. S. Afr. Instn. Civ. Engs., Vol. 20, No. 12, pp. 321-324. CSIRO. (2000). “Reducing Recharge from Rice Fields.” Research Project Information, CSIRO Land and Water, Sheet No. 19, May, Griffith, Australia. Bibliography Example (continued)

85 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 3 of 6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Davies, M., Mattes, N., and Avalle, D. (2004). “Use of the impact roller in site remediation and preparation for heavy duty pavement construction”, Proc. 2nd Intl. Geotechnical and Pavements Eng. Conf., Melbourne, 70-81. Hillman, M., Tan, E. and Mocke, R. (2007). “Advanced Geotechnical Modelling and Monitoring for the Port Coogee Project.” Proc. Coasts & Ports Conf., 18-20 July, Melbourne, Australia. Jumo, I., and Geldenhuys, J. (2004). “Impact compaction of subgrades - experience on the Trans- Kalahari Highway including continuous impact response (CIR) as a method of quality control.” 8th Conf. on Asphalt Pavements for Southern Africa (CAPSA’04), 12–16 September, Sun City, South Africa. Kelly, D.B. (2000). “Deep in-situ ground improvement using high energy impact compaction (HEIC) technology”, GeoEng2000, An Intl. Conf. on Geotechnical and Geological Engrg., 19-24 November, Melbourne, Australia. Landpac (2008a). Brochure on Impact Compaction Technology, LAND PAC, Nigel, South Africa. <http://www.landpac.co.za/Videos&Other/Landpac%20brochure.pdf> (Date Accessed: June 2009 – page updated October 2008). Landpac (2008b). Typical Specification – In-Situ Treatment of Soil by Means of Impact Compaction, LAND PAC, Nigel, South Africa, <http://www.landpac.co.za/Videos&Other/Typical%20Impact%20Compaction%20Specificat ion.pdf> (Date Accessed: June 2009 – page updated October 2008). Landpac (2008c). Background and Features of Impact Compaction. LAND PAC, Nigel, South Africa, < http://www.landpac.com/background%20and%20Features.html> (Date Accessed: June 2009 – page updated October 2008). Pinard, M.I. (1999). “Innovative developments in compaction technology using high energy impact compactors.” Proc. 8th ANZ Conf. on Geomechanics, Hobart, Australia. pp. 2-775 to 2-781. Pinrad, M.I. (2001). “Development in compaction technology”, Geotechnics for Roads, Rail Tracks, and Earth Structures, Edited by Correia, A.G., and Brandl H., A.A. Balkema Publishers, The Netherlands. Scott, B., Suto, K. (2007). “Case study of ground improvement at an industrial estate containing uncontrolled fill.” Common Ground 07, Proc., 10th Australia New Zealand Conference on Geomechanics, Brisbane, Australia. Bibliography Example (continued)

86 HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 4 of 6 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM BIBLIOGRAPHY Utah DOT (2010). Subgrade Improvements (Section 02058s) — Special Provision for Project S- 0073(20)33, PIN 8182, July 23, 2010, Utah Department of Transportation (DOT). Bibliography Example (continued)

87 HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 5 of 6 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM REFERENCE MATRIX KEY: = item addressed in reference TE CH NO LO G Y O VE RV IE W SI TE C HA RA CT ER IZ AT IO N A N A LY SI S TE CH NI QU ES D ES IG N PR O CE DU RE D ES IG N CO DE S CO NS TR UC TI O N M ET HO DS CO NS TR UC TI O N TI M E EQ UI PM EN T/ CO NT RA CT OR S CO NS TR UC TI O N LO AD S CO NT RA CT IN G CO NS TR UC TI O N SP EC S QA /Q C PE R FO RM AN CE C RI TE RI A M O NI TO RI NG G EO TE CH NI CA L LI M IT AT IO NS N O N- G EO TE CH L IM IT AT IO NS CA SE H IS TO RY EN VI R O NM EN TA L IM PA CT S IN IT IA L CO ST LI FE C YC LE C O ST S D UR AB IL IT Y R EL IA B IL IT Y M A TE R IA L PR O PE RT IE S Auzins and Southcott (1999) Avalle (2004a) Avalle (2004b) Avalle (2004c) Avalle (2004d) Avalle (2006) Avalle (2007a) Avalle (2007b) Avalle and Carter (2005) Avalle and Grounds (2004) Avalle and McKenzie (2005) Avalle and Young (2004) Avsar et al. (2006) Bouazza and Avalle (2006a,b) Broons (2009) Bibliography Example (continued)

88 HIGH ENERGY IMPACT ROLLERS July 2011 Page 6 of 6 R02 GEOTECHNICAL SOLUTIONS FOR SOIL IMPROVEMENT, RAPID EMBANKMENT CONSTRUCTION, AND STABILIZATION OF PAVEMENT WORKING PLATFORM REFERENCE MATRIX (CONTINUED) KEY: = item addressed in reference TE CH NO LO G Y O VE RV IE W SI TE C HA RA CT ER IZ AT IO N A N A LY SI S TE CH NI QU ES D ES IG N PR O CE DU RE D ES IG N CO DE S CO NS TR UC TI O N M ET HO DS CO NS TR UC TI O N TI M E EQ UI PM EN T/ CO NT RA CT OR S CO NS TR UC TI O N LO AD S CO NT RA CT IN G CO NS TR UC TI O N SP EC S QA /Q C PE R FO RM AN CE C RI TE RI A M O NI TO RI NG G EO TE CH NI CA L LI M IT AT IO NS N O N- G EO TE CH L IM IT AT IO NS CA SE H IS TO RY EN VI R O NM EN TA L IM PA CT S IN IT IA L CO ST LI FE C YC LE C O ST S D UR AB IL IT Y R EL IA B IL IT Y M A TE R IA L PR O PE RT IE S Burgess and Joubert (1995) Clegg and Berrangé (1971) Clifford (1976) CSIRO (2000) Davies et al. (2004) Hillman et al. (2007) Jumo and Geldenhuys (2004) Kelly (2000) Landpac (2008a) Landpac (2008b) Landpac (2008c) Pinrad (1999, 2001) Scott and Suto (2007) Utah DOT (2010) Bibliography Example (continued)