Case History: Failure of a Geotextile         Turbidity Curtain                  Michael D. Harney                  Robert...
Presentation Overview   Project Background   Containment System   Failure   Laboratory Testing    Program   Conclusio...
Project Background   Wood treating facility   Contaminants (incl NAPLs)    migrated into offshore    sediments   Remedi...
Project Background        N                      Land-based        Marine-based                               excavation  ...
Project BackgroundProject challenges NAPL in the sediments Limited sediment disposal options Large tidal fluctuations ...
Project Objectives   Remove contaminated sediments from marine    environment (dredging operation)   Dispose and contain...
Containment SystemComponents                              Boom flotation Geotextile curtain from                         ...
Containment SystemCurtain 540 g/m2 NW NP  PP selected by  boom supplier
Containment SystemCurtain Water exchange forces computed by consulting  engineer Calculations used manufacturer’s publis...
Failure   Curtain failure    occurred within    several hours of    completing    deployment
Failure   Curtain billowed    out with outgoing    tide   Flow diverted over    boom   Divers noted large    tears
FailureBoom modifications Float weighted down  (temporary) Large “windows” cut  into curtain  (permanent)Curtain not ret...
Laboratory Testing ProgramSamples obtained            All samples: Undeployed 2001            Black 540 g/m2  curtain (2...
Laboratory Testing ProgramTests Mechanical characterization: Wide width  tensile (ASTM D 4595) Hydraulic characterizatio...
Laboratory Testing ProgramMechanical Test Results                                 Mean Yield Tensile Strength             ...
Laboratory Testing ProgramHydraulic Test Results                         Permittivity (1/sec)    Material                 ...
Conclusions                       1.00                       0.75                              Manufacturer’s published va...
Conclusions   Poor flow-through of    the curtain ⇒ large    tidal forces applied    to geotextile   Geotextile’s streng...
Conclusions   A critical application?    –   Approx $0.5-million containment system    –   Environmental ramifications  ...
ConclusionsIf recommendations for critical / severe followed:   Ψ = 0.26 sec-1   FS = 10 ⇒ Ψdesign = 0.026 sec-1   Fail...
Lessons Learned   Necessity of quality laboratory    characterization for geosynthetics in critical /    severe applicati...
Acknowledgements   Bob Holtz, University of    Washington   Reid Carscadden,    Integral Consulting, Inc.
Questions
1998 Virgin Permittivity Tests                           0.3                          0.25                           0.2  ...
2001 Virgin Permittivity Tests                          0.3                         0.25                          0.2   Pe...
2001 Deployed Permittivity Tests                           0.3                                                 2" Head, Sp...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Geotextile Turbidity Curtain Failure

909

Published on

Case history of a geotextile turbidity curtain failure. Presented at the North American Geosynthetics Society 2005 conference.

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
909
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Geotextile Turbidity Curtain Failure

  1. 1. Case History: Failure of a Geotextile Turbidity Curtain Michael D. Harney Robert D. Holtz University of Washington
  2. 2. Presentation Overview Project Background Containment System Failure Laboratory Testing Program Conclusions & Lessons Learned
  3. 3. Project Background Wood treating facility Contaminants (incl NAPLs) migrated into offshore sediments Remediation involved dredging and disposal of 31,000 m3 of contaminated sediments Initiated in July 2001; completed in early 2002
  4. 4. Project Background N Land-based Marine-based excavation excavation zone zone Sediment containment boom Floating breakwater dock Shoreline NAPL area Groundwate r treatment facility Upland containment cell Marina
  5. 5. Project BackgroundProject challenges NAPL in the sediments Limited sediment disposal options Large tidal fluctuations Sediment characteristics Protection of local wildlife and surface water quality
  6. 6. Project Objectives Remove contaminated sediments from marine environment (dredging operation) Dispose and contain contaminants on-site Restore site’s aquatic habitat Suspended sediments contained by sediment containment boom (turbidity curtain)
  7. 7. Containment SystemComponents Boom flotation Geotextile curtain from Water level (varies) seafloor to water Curtain panel surface Rope connection Concrete block anchors Curtain skirt Anchor chain sewn to Concrete block Anchor chain anchor (0.6-m x 0.6-m curtain x 1-m) Existing mudline (elevation varies) Floats
  8. 8. Containment SystemCurtain 540 g/m2 NW NP PP selected by boom supplier
  9. 9. Containment SystemCurtain Water exchange forces computed by consulting engineer Calculations used manufacturer’s published values of mat’l properties (Ψ = 0.7 sec-1) Assumed tidal fluctuation of 6.4-m, and half the geotextile openings were clogged (FS = 2) Design accepted by owner’s engineer
  10. 10. Failure Curtain failure occurred within several hours of completing deployment
  11. 11. Failure Curtain billowed out with outgoing tide Flow diverted over boom Divers noted large tears
  12. 12. FailureBoom modifications Float weighted down (temporary) Large “windows” cut into curtain (permanent)Curtain not retrieved, but sample provided for analysis
  13. 13. Laboratory Testing ProgramSamples obtained All samples: Undeployed 2001  Black 540 g/m2 curtain (2001 Virgin) nonwoven needlepunched staple Undeployed 1998 pilot filament polypropylene study (1998 Virgin) Deployed 2001 curtain Noticeably infused with (2001 Deployed) red-brown biological material
  14. 14. Laboratory Testing ProgramTests Mechanical characterization: Wide width tensile (ASTM D 4595) Hydraulic characterization: Permittivity testing (ASTM D 4491)
  15. 15. Laboratory Testing ProgramMechanical Test Results Mean Yield Tensile Strength Mean Elongation at Rupture (%) Number of (kN/m) Sample tests (MD/XD) Machine Cross Machine Cross Direction Direction Direction Direction (MD) (XD) (MD) (XD) 2001 Virgin (6/6) 30.6 52.5 80 68 2001 Deployed (5/5) 28.9 49.9 81 70 1998 Virgin (2/2) 30.6 51.7 80 70 1994 through 2004 Virgin N/A 31.0 51.5 62 59 (commercial laboratory)
  16. 16. Laboratory Testing ProgramHydraulic Test Results Permittivity (1/sec) Material Tests Coefficient of Mean Range Variation Five specimens @ two heads 2001 virgin 0.26 17% 0.16-0.30 (five runs of each) Two specimens @ two heads 1998 virgin 0.27 5.3% 0.25-0.30 (five runs of each) Five specimens @ two heads 2001 deployed 0.03 59% 0.01-0.07 (five runs of each)
  17. 17. Conclusions 1.00 0.75 Manufacturer’s published value = 0.70Permittivity (sec-1) 0.50 Engineer’s allowable (FS=2) value = 0.35 2001 Virgin sample tested value = 0.26 0.25 2001 Deployed sample tested value = 0.03
  18. 18. Conclusions Poor flow-through of the curtain ⇒ large tidal forces applied to geotextile Geotextile’s strength eventually exceeded, causing failure
  19. 19. Conclusions A critical application? – Approx $0.5-million containment system – Environmental ramifications Severe hydraulic conditions? – Tidal fluctuation > 6-m Typical critical app / severe condition recommendations: – Test! – Safety factor = 10
  20. 20. ConclusionsIf recommendations for critical / severe followed: Ψ = 0.26 sec-1 FS = 10 ⇒ Ψdesign = 0.026 sec-1 Failure?
  21. 21. Lessons Learned Necessity of quality laboratory characterization for geosynthetics in critical / severe applications Appropriate safety factors must be used
  22. 22. Acknowledgements Bob Holtz, University of Washington Reid Carscadden, Integral Consulting, Inc.
  23. 23. Questions
  24. 24. 1998 Virgin Permittivity Tests 0.3 0.25 0.2 Permittivity (sec-1) 0.15 0.1 0.05 2" Head, Spec 1 2" Head, Spec 2 1" Head, Spec 1 1" Head, Spec 2 0 1 2 3 4 5 Trial
  25. 25. 2001 Virgin Permittivity Tests 0.3 0.25 0.2 Permittivity (sec ) -1 0.15 2" Head, Spec 1 0.1 2" Head, Spec 2 2" Head, Spec 3 2" Head, Spec 4 2" Head, Spec 5 1" Head, Spec 1 0.05 1" Head, Spec 2 1" Head, Spec 3 1" Head, Spec 4 1" Head, Spec 5 0 1 2 3 4 5 Trial
  26. 26. 2001 Deployed Permittivity Tests 0.3 2" Head, Spec 1 2" Head, Spec 2 2" Head, Spec 3 0.25 2" Head, Spec 4 2" Head, Spec 5 1" Head, Spec 1 1" Head, Spec 2 0.2 1" Head, Spec 3 1" Head, Spec 4 Permittivity (sec-1) 1" Head, Spec 5 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 1 2 3 4 5 Trial

×