BRIEF REVIEW
OF
GEOTECHNICAL / GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
OF
JANUARY 2021 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC LEVITATION (SCMAGLEV) PROJECT
Created For City of Greenbelt, Maryland
Dr. Burak F. Tanyu 1
April 19, 2021
1 Associate Professor of Geotechnical/Geotransportation Engineering in the Civil, Infrastructure, and Environmental Engineering Department of George Mason University. Prior to joining George Mason, Dr. Tanyu worked as a senior geotechnical engineer in private industry. Dr. Tanyu’s resume is attached to this report as Attachment A.
1
This brief review is written to provide a quick overview of the content included in the detailed review for the City of Greenbelt (City). The detailed review is provided as a separate document. The purpose of these reviews is to provide an assessment of the geotechnical / geological content of the January 2021 draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) that was released by the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (USDOT) Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Magnetic Levitation (SCMAGLEV) project.
Overview of the SCMAGLEV Project
The SCMAGLEV system in the DEIS refers to a high-speed train system that runs on a fixed guideway (with no traditional railway but instead a designated pathway) powered by magnetic forces that is capable of traveling at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. Once the SCMAGLEV is in operation, it is stated that the trains will be in service 365 days per year between the hours of 5:00 am and 11:00 pm. The construction of such system along this route is anticipated to take 7 years.
The DEIS outlines two possible routes (referred as alignments) for the train system:
• J alignment: This proposed alignment is reported to consist of 25% viaducts and 75% tunnels. • J1 alignment: This proposed alignment is reported to contain 14% viaducts and 86% tunnels.
Within the limits of the City, the project appears to be a combination of what is referred as deep tunnels (identified in the DEIS as the separation between the top of the tunnel and the ground surface to be more than 50 ft) and the transition zone where the separation becomes shallower. Within the limits of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC), there is a transition zone from the tunnel to the ground surface and then the majority of the project appear to be through viaducts. Within the City and BARC, both the J and J1 alignments are very close to each other in their locations. As is discussed in more detail in the Detailed Review document (See Commentary-6) it is not clear why the J1 alignment transition from deep tunnel to the shallower tunnel was selected to occur right around a well-established residential area and how such consideration was justified based on geotechnical and geological information. Additionally, the tunnel construction details provided in the DEIS for this type of tunnel portal construction does not specify which proposed construction type might be used at this site, therefore it is not clear whether the ground will be excavated and if so, will there be open cut portal sections, cut and cover sections, or something else. See Appendix G02, TY-6.
The DEIS indicates that along the proposed alignments, maintenance and repair facilities associated for the train systems (trainset maintenance facility - TMF) and for the guideways (maintenance of way - MOW facility) are also required to be constructed. In terms of the locations of these facilities, the DEIS provides six alternatives for each alignment. However, in terms of the impact to the City and BARC, only three alternative combinations are relevant and
2
these options are the same for both alignments. These three alternative locations for the TMF and MOW facilities can be summarized as:
• BARC west alternative (located within the west side of the BARC property and west of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway); • BARC airstrip alternative (located within the east side of the BARC property and along the decommissioned airstrip located within the BARC property); and • MD 198 alternative (located within a property that is outside of BARC and City limits).
Although the DEIS was released by FRA and MDOT, it is stated in the DEIS that the Baltimore- Washington Rapid Rail, LLC (BWRR) (a private Project Sponsor) will be the entity that would design, construct, and operate the SCMAGLEV system. The preferred configuration of the train system by BWRR have been outlined in the DEIS as:
• J alignment; • BARC west alternative for the TMF and MOW facilities, and • Termination of the train system at Cherry Hill south of I-95 close to Baltimore (outside the limits of the City and BARC).
The DEIS explains the BWRR’s preferred alternative was selected because it would require shorter construction time, increases the ability to avoid and mitigate impacts, and lowers construction and operating costs. Although BWRR’s preferred alternative has been outlined in the DEIS, the DEIS includes information regarding both J and J1 alignments.
The DEIS is very comprehensive. It includes five chapters and seven appendices, and sub- appendices within appendices that entail hundreds of pages. Overall, many details that would be expected from a comprehensive planning study have been incorporated in the DEIS. Considering that the purpose of this review written for the City is to provide an assessment of the geotechnical / geological content of the January 2021 DEIS, it is important to summarize in this executive summary the content within DEIS as it relates to these subjects and the associated gaps. Such summaries are provided below.
Geotechnical and Geological Content of the DEIS
The DEIS has the following sections as it relates to geology and geotechnical engineering:
• Chapter 4, Section 4.13, Topography and geology; • Chapter 4, Section 4.14, Soils and farmlands; and • Appendix G13, Preliminary geotechnical engineering assessment report.
The content of these sections include depictions of site-specific subsurface investigations (borings) at twenty-three locations (along the roughly 40 miles distance), interpretation of continued longitudinal subsurface sections along the profile where borings were performed (created by two different firms), sixty nine laboratory index tests of soil samples obtained from
3
subsurface, extensive literature review of the regional geology, and generic information regarding possible construction methods.
Key findings from the DEIS as it relates to the overall geology of the project site for the entire distance between Washington D.C. and Baltimore are as follows:
• Index property tests indicate presence of at least three different soil types in the region and presence of bedrock. Literature review discussed in the DEIS indicates that the properties of these soils and bedrock as it relates to possible engineering properties may vary greatly from each other within the region; • Water levels observed from the subsurface investigations confirm that most of the tunnel depths will be constructed in zones below groundwater; • Geology, in terms of aquifer systems and consistency of the soil units throughout the region are complex and may vary from one location to another; • Some soils in the region are susceptible to slope instabilities (landslides), erosion, and swelling as well as may contain electrochemical and chemical properties that may be a risk to corrode/weaken concrete and steel (materials that may be used during construction of the project).
Gaps in the DEIS As It Relates to Geological and Geotechnical Considerations
The following paragraph has been copied directly from the Section ES 1.4 of the DEIS:
“The DEIS provides a detailed description of the SCMAGLEV Project Purpose and Need, alternatives developed, the existing environmental conditions and the analysis of the potential beneficial and adverse environmental effects and consequences of the alternatives, and potential mitigation strategies. The DEIS provides a comparative analysis between the No Build Alternative and the Build Alternatives so that government agencies, elected official, interested citizens, businesses, and other stakeholders can assess the potential human and environmental effects of the SCMAGLEV Project.”
The purpose of copying the above citation into this brief summary is to outline that it is stated in the DEIS that a comparative analysis has been provided for the people to assess the potential human and environmental effects. However, it is not clear from what has been provided in the DEIS how the alignments and alternatives have been evaluated in detail in terms of the geological and geotechnical impacts that may potentially create a risk for humans, infrastructures, and environment.
The primary gap associated with this concern starts from the elimination of 14 different alignment alternatives to almost two similar alignments. It is not clear how the DEIS team evaluated the geotechnical and geological risks for each of the 14 previously considered alignments during the evaluation of the alternatives. For example, from the presented information in the DEIS, some of the previously eliminated alignments could have allowed the tunnels to be constructed through bedrock layers that were shallower in depth. This condition
4
appears to change in other alignments. Such comparisons, for example, could have allowed the specific discussions between the alignments in terms of the effects of surface settlements, facing stability issues during tunneling, earthquakes, etc. These types of discussions and evaluations could not be found in the DEIS. It is believed that during the process of choosing an alignment such evaluation helps minimize adverse effects and risks associated with projects. Considering that the major risk factors, especially in the tunnel and tunnel portals and high fill areas proposed for the BARC, are related to geological and geotechnical factors, it is not clear how the DEIS team has narrowed down the project into these proposed alignments. It may be claimed that the risks may be minimized during the design process; however, a better approach is to choose an alignment that inherently provides less risks from the beginning. If such considerations were made, this information is not clear in the DEIS.
Gaps associated with geological and geotechnical factors also exist within the provided information regarding the J and J1 alignments where subsurface investigations have been conducted. Out of the twenty-three soil borings discussed in the DEIS, there is only one subsurface investigation within the limits of the City (conducted along Route 193). There are also two additional borings near the vicinity of the one within the limits of the City. All of these borings are at the south end of the City limits (before the area where the tunnel daylights in the ground surface).2 Based on these limited information, there is a layer of low plastic clay and silt zones in the proximity of the area where the tunnel will daylight at the ground surface. In all of these areas, the groundwater is not far from the ground surface in comparison to the location of the tunnel. No boring logs from the subsurface exploration have been provided. Without such data, it is not possible for the general public to confirm the longitudinal sections provided in the DEIS (especially considering the limited number and extent of the laboratory testing for the subsurface strata conducted within the project alignment).
It is not clear from the DEIS to what extent the above listed geotechnical and geological factors were incorporated into the decision making in the choice of the alignments (both for tunnels and viaducts), transitions to the ground surface, and selected potential locations for the repair and maintenance facilities. The geological and geotechnical factors are believed to be important because of the following considerations:
• There is a residential establishment (known as Greenbriar Condominiums) within the City where the transition from the tunnel and viaduct is proposed along the J alignment (and is also close within the J1 alignment). It is not clear how the location of this establishment and the subsurface conditions were taken into account to determine to day light the tunnel in the vicinity of this area.
2 Appendix G02 shows some soil borings as being taken in locations different than the locations indicated in Appendix G13, Figure 1. Compare DEIS Appendix G02 at pp-07, 13, 18, 21, 26, 29, 37, and DEIS Appendix G13, Figure 1 (“Plan view of boreholes from the Preliminary Ground Investigation Program”). It is unclear why the boring locations in Appendix G02 are inconsistent with the locations indicated in Appendix G13, Figure 1. For example, Appendix G02 shows BWP-10 as being located next to the Eleanor Roosevelt High School. However, in Appendix G13, Figure 1, BWP-10 is shown as being located near the Patuxent Research Refuge. FRA should resolve these inconsistencies.
5
• No data from the site-specific subsurface explorations are presented to confirm the density/stiffness of the soil layers. It is not clear how the density/stiffness of the subsurface conditions assessed and such information incorporated into deciding the location for the alignments. • No engineering property evaluations (consolidation, shear strength, hydraulic conductivity, pore pressure dissipation, etc. types of data) from site specific samples of the soil and rock have been provided. Considering that stability, settlement, effects of tunneling, effects of earthquakes, etc. require such engineering parameters, it is not clear how the selection of the alignments were determined without such site-specific evaluations. No site-specific discussions on assessment of porewater pressure build-up and dissipation under the ground and consolidation coefficient values (vertical and horizontal directions) have been discussed or provided. Lack of such information limits assessments to confirm that the tunneling activities will not hinder the foundations of the existing structures on the ground surface. The DEIS refers to long-term settlement, bearing capacity, and coefficient of subgrade reaction values, however, it is not explained how such information could be presented without engineering properties of soils. • Although the water table that was observed during boring operations have been noted in the DEIS because of the complexity of the groundwater regime in the area, the information appears to be rather based on information obtained and summarized from general reports. Therefore the description of the groundwater regime in the area appears to be in general sense. Furthermore, the DEIS clearly identifies the potential risks associated with high groundwater conditions but does not appear to discuss how based on these conditions the depths of the tunnels, locations of the tunnel portals, etc. have been chosen for the project. • No data within or in the vicinity of the City and BARC provided to confirm the depth to bedrock (competent ground). Therefore, a comparison of the tunnel constructed within the bedrock or soil strata was not presented. Considering that the shallower the depth of the tunnel most likely the higher the impact on the ground surface would be, it is not clear to what extent the geotechnical / geological assessments were considered to determine the depth of the tunnels. • No site-specific geotechnical and geological data presented to confirm the long-term stability of the area within the limits of proposed repair and maintenance facilities within the limits of BARC. • No geotechnical / geological discussions were provided to explain why the repair and maintenance facilities have to be constructed above ground (and why an alternative could not be considered at an underground location). • In the TMF locations there area segments where it appears that relatively high fill may be placed. It is not clear whether stability analyses were considered to confirm the suitability of these high fills in these potentially high-risk landslide areas. If these fill areas will be constructed with side slopes, it is not clear how much of the area would be impacted by the extent of these slopes. Therefore, it should also be clarified in the DEIS that the outlined LOD areas have been determined considering these factors to avoid potential for any additional loss of/impact to environmental features and habitat. This is
6
discussed in more detail in the Detailed Review document (See the discussion below Figure 16)). • No site-specific assessment has been provided in terms of geotechnical and geological data especially within the zones of transition from tunnels to viaduct system within the limits of the City as it relates to risks associated with frac-outs. This condition in the literature is referred for situations, where the pressurized slurry used during the tunnel boring is released through a weakness in the local geology toward the surface. • No geotechnical / geological analyses have been provided in terms of the potential impacts to the safety of the proposed structures (tunnels in soil strata and repair facilities in potentially landslide prone areas) due to the seismic activities (earthquakes) that may happen in the region (instead, the DEIS almost dismisses the fact that an earthquake may occur at a magnitude that could be problematic for the constructed facilities underground and above potentially unstable ground). • No geotechnical / geological details are provided regarding how the drilled shaft capacity analyses for the viaducts were performed and in what specific locations along the alignment these analyses are valid for. • No in-situ field assessments are provided around the BARC west option to confirm the suitability of the layout in regards to the abandoned mines in the area. • No specific discussions included in terms of how the potential fossiliferous zones be handled during tunnelling to eliminate impacts on the ground surface. Such zones could potentially constitute weakness in the local geology and cause increased level of difficulties during tunneling. • No geotechnical / geological evidence has been evaluated on how the potential vibrations from SCMAGLEV system in the tunnel may influence the soil properties in the long term.
Key Findings
Inadequate geotechnical/geological considerations. Considering that (i) the proposed technology is a first to be constructed in the U.S., (ii) the extent of the tunneling in this project appears to be longer than any other past tunnel projects in the U.S., and (iii) the complexity of the geology within the proposed region along with the presence of high groundwater elevations; the DEIS falls short on sharing enough site specific geotechnical / geological details with the general public to help assess the suitability of the proposed alignments and the locations of the repair and maintenance facilities.
The term “site specific” (at a minimum) is referred herein to assessment of the actual conditions of the local geology (not based on literature) as it relates to engineering properties of the soil and rock units as well as groundwater conditions in the field along with the alignment and locations of the associated infrastructures and how such findings are related to decision making as it relates to all parts of the project. Site specific geotechnical and geological assessments are critical to assess the safety concerns associated with (but not limited to) location and construction of the tunnels, unintended frac-outs during construction, differential settlements during construction or during operation, slope instabilities, and long-term potential
7
effects of vibration within the tunnels. The DEIS comprises great detail in generic sense (primarily based on literature), but even the information shared with general public regarding the findings from the twenty-three borings are based on very simple and limited index soil laboratory tests (not even the SPT blow counts are included in the DEIS).
Inadequate differentiation of the two alignments. The DEIS refers to two different alternative alignments, but in terms of geology and geotechnical conditions, these two alignments do not appear to be much different from each to be considered as true alternative alignments. As presented in the DEIS, the differences between J and J1 alignments do not appear to have much consideration of local geology and geotechnical properties.
Inadequate consideration of the soil strata given the extent of tunneling. The high profile of the proposed project requires careful and thorough consideration of all aspects of the construction and the overall impact on the communities on its path. Unless otherwise reported, no other project has been undertaken in the U.S with such long underground tunnels within soil strata that is below groundwater and heavily occupied residential region. It also appears that at this time, there is no current SCMAGLEV system in commercial use around the world for this type of application. Therefore, at its current form, the presented information in the DEIS does not seem to be sufficient enough to justify the proposed alignments and locations of the repair and maintenance facilities based on detailed geological / geotechnical concerns. At a minimum, it is recommended that DEIS address the following in detail:
• How was the decision made to narrow down the entire project alignment alternatives into two very similar alignments based on the geological / geotechnical assessments for each initially considered alignment alternatives? • How the depth of the tunnel alignments were chosen? Why is the tunnel construction proposed within the soil strata and not within bedrock? Has there been any geotechnical / geological analyses conducted with site specific data to support this decision? • What were the bases of the decision to daylight the tunnel at the specific locations depicted in DEIS along the alignments? Has there been any geotechnical / geological analyses conducted with site specific data to support these decisions? What is the assessment of anticipated geotechnical impacts of these locations to be the near residential areas? • Has there been any detailed analyses to confirm the stability of the ground that will be created to support the repair and maintenance facilities within BARC?
Inevitably, every construction project carries a risk. This author believes that the most important mitigation measure starts by selecting the most suitable alignment. Considering that tunnels are underground infrastructures, understanding the local geology in each considered alignment plays an upmost importance. Based on the provided information in the DEIS, geology and geotechnical details are not established in each alignment such that they can be compared as alternatives to each other and if such evaluation has been conducted by the DEIS team, detailed information has not been provided to the general public.
8
DETAILED REVIEW
OF
GEOTECHNICAL / GEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENTS
OF
JANUARY 2021 DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT (DEIS)
BALTIMORE-WASHINGTON SUPERCONDUCTING MAGNETIC LEVITATION (SCMAGLEV) PROJECT
Created For City of Greenbelt, Maryland
Dr. Burak F. Tanyu
April 19, 2021
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 3 II. FOCUSED AREA EVALUATED IN THIS DOCUMENT ...... 13 III. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED IN DEIS AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY AND BARC 21 IIIa. Extent of Infrastructures ...... 21 IIIa-1. Tunnel and Tunnel Portal...... 21 IIIa-2. TMF and MOWs ...... 26 IIIa-3. Viaducts ...... 31 IIIb. Extent of Geological and Geotechnical Information ...... 32 IIIb-1. Subsurface Stratification ...... 32 IIIb-2. Soil Properties ...... 40 IIIb-3. Groundwater Conditions ...... 41 IIIb-4. Bedrock ...... 46 IIIc. Extent of Instrumentation Plan ...... 49 IIId. Extent of Foundation Information for Viaducts ...... 50 IV. INFORMATION GATHERED FROM LITERATURE ...... 51 IVa. Geology within the City and BARC ...... 51 IVb. Seismic Activity within the Region ...... 55 IVc. Mining Activity within the Region ...... 58 IVd. Summary of Previous Relevant Research Related to the Effects of Vibration ...... 61 IVe. Summary of Tunneling Operations Provided in DEIS and Comparison with Literature ...... 66 IVf. Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Tunnels for Trains Constructed Through Soil Strata ...... 69 IVg. Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Groundwater and Train Tunnels ...... 72 V. LIST OF MISSING INFORMATION IN THE DEIS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE SELECTED ALIGNMENTS ...... 76 VI. POSSIBLE GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS IF THE PROJECT PURSUES ...... 79 VIa. Short-Term Effects (During the 7+ year of Anticipated Construction) ...... 79 VIb. Long-Term Effects (What Could Happen After the Operation Starts) ...... 79 VII. CONCLUSIONS ...... 80
2
I. INTRODUCTION
This detailed review is written for the City of Greenbelt (City). The purpose of this review is to provide an assessment of the geotechnical / geological content of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for the Baltimore-Washington Superconducting Magnetic Levitation (SCMAGLEV) project. In this review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement is referred as DEIS.
The DEIS is dated as January 13, 2021 and has been prepared by US Department of Transportation – Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) along with many cooperating agencies.
The DEIS has many pages and many appendices. Therefore, to clarify what has been reviewed, relevant information (text, figures, and/or tables) from the DEIS is inserted into this document and highlighted by placing this information in between quotation marks and italicizing the text. Assessments of the inserted information is included in the paragraphs following the inserts. Additionally, when relevant, commentaries are added to raise questions and/or to highlight important summaries. In order to make the commentaries more visible and easier to find, they are numbered and written in indented paragraphs with the wording starting as Commentary. The text associated with commentaries is highlighted with light gray shading. It should be noted that if there are any missed information or additional information that becomes available by the FRA, such content may result in revisions of some of the comments provided in this review.
When deemed relevant, information from the following documents were also incorporated into this review: • City of Greenbelt (2021) Local site investigation conducted by KIM Engineering (two boreholes) • Niu J., Sui Y., Yu Q., Cao X., Yuan Y. (2020) “Aerodynamics of railway train/tunnel system: A review of recent research”, Journal of Energy and Built Environment, Volume 1, pp- 351-375; doi.org/10.1016/j.enbenv.2020.03.003. • Yu C., Zhou A., Chen J., Arulrajah A., Horpibulsuk S. (2020) “Analysis of a tunnel failure caused by leakage of the shield tail seal system” Underground Space 5 pp. 105-114. • Reference Guide for Load Rating of Tunnel Structures (2019), Publication No. FHWA-HIF- 19-010, Infrastructure Office of Bridges and Structures, May 2019 • USDOT FRA (2018) Baltimore-Washington Superconducting MAGLEV Project – Final Preliminary Alternatives Screening Report • Caldo, M. and Massad F. (2016) “Geotechnical parameters for the Variegated soils of Sao Paulo Formation by Means of In Situ tests” Soils and Rocks, 39 (2) pp. 189-200 • Bilgin N., Copur H. Balci C. (2016) “TBM Excavation in Difficult Ground Conditions: Case Studies from Turkey”, Wilhelm Ernst & Sohn Berlin, Germany, p. 341
3
• Babendererde and Elsner (2014) “Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft Ground” – Yoo, Park, Kim & Ban (Eds) © 2014 Korean Geotechnical Society, Seoul, Korea, ISBN 978-1-138-02700-8 • Shen S.L., Wu H.N. Cui Y.J. and Yin Z.Y. (2014) “Long-term settlement behavior of metro tunnels in the soft deposits of Shanghai” Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology 40 (2014) 309–323 • Bezuijen A. and Talmaon A.M. (2009) “Processes around a TBM” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground, pp. 3-15 • Hashimoto T. and Ye B: (2009) “Construction method, ground treatment, and conditioning for tunneling” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground, pp. 99-109 • Gong Q.M. and Zhou S.H. (2009) “Shield tunneling beneath existing railway line in soft ground” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground, pp. 381-384 • Li Y., Zhang Z.X., Emeriault F. and Kastner R. (2009) “Stability analysis of large slurry shield-driven tunnel in soft clay” Geotechnical Aspects of Underground Construction in Soft ground, pp. 689-697 • Hansen H.J. and Edwards, J. (1986) “The lithology and distribution Of pre-cretaceous basement rocks beneath the Maryland coastal plain” Maryland Geological Survey Report of Investigation No. 44, p. 37 • Zoback M.L. and Zoback M. (1980) “State of Stress in the Conterminous United states” Journal of Geophysical Research, 85 (B11) pp 6113-6156 • Clark B. et al. (1911) “Maryland Geological Survey: Prince George’s County” The Johns Hopkins Press, p. 284 • Narayan J. P. “Study of Basin-edge Effects on the Ground Motion Characteristics Using 2.5-D Modelling”, February 2005, Pure and Applied Geophysics, 162(2):273-289, DOI: 10.1007/s00024-004-2600-8 • Content included from the following web sites: o https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/1988/2048/report.pdf o https://pubs.usgs.gov/mf/1988/2048/plate-1.pdf o http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/geohazards/marlboro_clay.html o https://mrdata.usgs.gov/general/map-us.html?x=-95.25146&y=38.95845&z=4 o http://www.mgs.md.gov/maps/PGGEO2003_2_S83.pdf o http://www.geerassociation.org/index.php/component/geer_reports/?view=geerreport s&id=38 o https://www.tunneltalk.com/Discussion-Forum-Sep2017-Extra-correspondence- following-Rastatt-TBM-tunnel-collapse.php
General overview
SCMAGLEV system is explained in the DEIS as a high-speed rail system that runs on a fixed guideway powered by magnetic forces at speeds of over 300 miles per hour. Once in operation, it is stated that the trains will be in service 365 days per year between the hours of 5:00 am and 11:00 pm.
4
The construction of the system is anticipated to take 7 years and will involve trucking more than 23 million cubic yards of soil. Based on the DEIS, part of the train system will be constructed underground via tunnels and part on elevated platforms via viaducts. Connection between the tunnels and viaducts will be made through tunnel portals. The train system will also require the construction of the following infrastructures: • Station at DC; • Station at BWI Airport; • Station at Baltimore; • Trainset maintenance facility (TMF) that is capable of storing 16-railcars; • Maintenance of way (MOW) facilities; • Smaller ancillary facilities associated with TMF and MOW such as repair shops, storage buildings, etc.; • Electric power stations that will run parallel to the guideway system; and • Fresh air and emergency egress (FA/EE) facilities with fan systems constructed in approximately every 3 to 4 miles.
Although the DEIS was released by FRA and MDOT, it is stated in the executive summary of the DEIS that Baltimore-Washington Rapid Rail, LLC (BWRR), the private Project Sponsor, is the entity that would design, construct, and operate the SCMAGLEV system. In the DEIS, it is stated that FRA awarded a $27.8 million grant to MDOT MTA for preliminary engineering and Environmental Review for the SCMAGLEV Project. BWRR provided a 20 percent match for the grant for the NEPA study and preliminary engineering. It is stated that at the time of the release of the DEIS, no funding was appropriated for construction.
In the DEIS, it is also stated that “FRA safety regulations do not comprehensively address SCMAGLEV train operations, as this technology is not currently deployed in the United States. Therefore, FRA may issue a rule of particular applicability (RPA) (regulations that apply to a specific railroad or a specific type of operation), a rule of general applicability, impose requirements or conditions by order(s) or waiver(s), or take other regulatory action(s) to ensure the SCMAGLEV Project is operated safely. This regulatory action(s) and providing Project funding require an environmental review under NEPA.”
Commentary-1: It is not clear from the DEIS if what is referred as not deployed in the U.S. by FRA is only the train system or the entire project including the very complex tunnel boring operations. Is there another tunneling project in the U.S. with similar diameter of tunnels, length of tunnels, and with comparable geological / geotechnical complexities of the region associated with this project?
Previously evaluated alternatives
Before providing a detailed review of what has been provided in DEIS, it is important to highlight the other alternatives that have been previously mentioned by the FRA.
5
USDOT FRA (2018) outlines these alternatives with the following content (underlines are added for the purpose of this review):
“Screening Level 1 began with FRA, MDOT and BWRR identifying 14 initial build alignments (Alignments A, B, C, D, E, E1, F, G, G1, H, I, I1, J, and J1) and 10 station zones (five in Baltimore: Harbor East, Inner Harbor, Port Covington, Westport-Cherry Hill, Penn Station; one at BWI Marshall Airport, and; four in Washington, DC: Washington Union Station, NoMa-Gallaudet, Farragut Square, and Mount Vernon Square). All alignments included a connection with the BWI Marshall Airport. FRA and MDOT considered reasonable alignments that are practical or feasible from the technical, environmental, and constructability standpoint. Adverse environmental impacts of reasonable alignments can potentially be avoided or mitigated in the DEIS.”. The extent of the previously considered alignments have been summarized by USDOT FRA (2018) in a figure, which is also copied into this review (herein referred as Figure 1).
The reasons why some of these alternatives have been eliminated has been summarized by the USDOT FRA (2018) as:
“During the screening level 1 of alignments, FRA and MDOT dismissed alignments A, B, C, D, E, F, and I, as they did not meet the minimum radius for highest practical speed operation. FRA and MDOT advanced seven preliminary alignments, E1, G, G1, H, I1, J, and J1, to Screening Level 2. FRA and MDOT subsequently dismissed alignments E1, G, G1, H and I1 in Screening Level 2 based on a desktop level analysis for potential environmental impacts, human factors, and a construction feasibility analysis. FRA and MDOT retained alignments J and J1 (plus the No Build) for continued analysis in this Alternatives Report.”. Two figures from the USDOT FRA (2018) have been copied into this review to also graphically describe the above-mentioned elimination process and the alignment of the eliminated routes. These figures herein referred as Figures 2 and 3.
The outcome of the USDOT FRA (2018) eliminations have then been summarized in the DEIS. Chapter 3 of the DEIS has similar repeated text as in USDOT FRA (2018) report as provided below (underlines were added for the purpose of this review):
“The Preliminary Alternative Screening report (PASR) identified a reasonable range of alignments and possible station locations, proposed by BWRR, for the SCMAGLEV project. Fourteen initial alignments were screened for fatal flaws to identify alignments at meet the geometric requirements necessary to achieve and maintain optimum operating speed of the SCMAGLEV system. BWRR as the project sponsor developed engineering criteria and concepts for the alternatives. Seven alignments were advanced to a second screening and evaluated against criteria including construction feasibility (total length, percent of elevated guideway, length of tunnel, and conflicts with existing transportation facilities), environmental features (residential and business property impacts and displacements, cultural resources, parks and Federal lands, and natural resources), and public comments. This screening eliminated four alignments. One additional alignment was eliminated based on public input received at public meetings in October 2017. The results of the screenings recommended further study of two
6
Figure 1. Insert from Appendix C of DEIS
7
Figure 2. Screening of alternative alignments outlined in DEIS
Source: https://www.bwmaglev.info/index.php/april-2017-draft-purpose-and-need-and-screening-meetings-maps
Figure 3. Alignments of the screened alternatives in level 2
8
alternatives Build Alternatives J (Baltimore-Washington Parkway (BWP) Modified-East) and Build Alternatives J1 (BWP Modified-West). These alignments each achieve the geometrical requirements for SCMAGLEV Project operation and, compared to the other alternatives, would include the following: • Relatively fewer residential property acquisitions and displacements; • Fewer visual and noise impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and communities because of a shorter elevated section; No impacts to other existing and planned mass transit facilities, including the NEC, planned Odenton Town Center Transit-Oriented Development at the MARC Odenton Station, and the MARC Seabrook Station; and • Fewer impacts on parks and trails.”
The above citations have been inserted into this review to acknowledge that the selection process of elimination to narrow down alignments is complex. However, if, as described by USDOT FRA (2018) that the alternatives were established based on evaluations associated with practicality or feasibility from the technical, environmental, and constructability standpoints, it is not clear why the proposed A, B, C, D, E, G and I alternative alignments have been eliminated because they did not fit the geometrical requirements of the SCMAGLEV system.
Commentary-2: Couldn’t the requirements for the geometry of the alignment be adapted to make these as viable alternatives?
The comments made by FRA to eliminate alternatives E1, G, G1, H and I1 are stated to be based on optimization concerns. However details of the facts that have led to the elimination of these alternative alignments could not be found in the DEIS.
Commentary-3: Couldn’t the alignments be further modified to still make these as viable alternatives or if none of these alternative alignments were viable, shouldn’t other/additional alternatives be considered before narrowing down to just two options?
The above commentaries were made because the executive summary of the DEIS has the following statement (underlines added for the purpose of this review):
“BWRR has identified its preferred configuration; Build Alternative J, BARC West TMF, and Cherry Hill as the north terminus station (Build Alternatives J-03). BWRR favors this alternative for its shorter construction, ability to avoid and mitigate impacts, and lower construction and operating costs. BWRR believes Build Alternative J-03 will be the least impact and lowest cost to construct, operate, and maintain while also providing the earliest start to revenue service.”
Commentary-4: The words underlined in the above statement indicate that significant evaluation most probably have been completed already for the BWRR to have such strong opinion. However, detailed discussions related to BWRR’s ability to avoid and mitigate impacts and how this particular alignment would result in least impact compared to the other alternative alignments could not be located in the DEIS. Also,
9
information regarding how much site specific / local geology and geotechnical information has been considered for all of the alternatives including the ones pushed forward in the January 2021 DEIS could not be found.
The DEIS indicates that for the purposes of the general public commentary, the available alignment options have been narrowed down to two alignments as J and J1. Therefore, the primary focus of this review has been associated with these two alignments.
Structure of this review
This review has been divided into seven sections (including the introduction). Each section has been numerated with Roman numbers (i.e., I, II, III, etc.) and subsections have been numbered as letters of the Latin alphabet (IIa, IIb, IIc, etc.).
• Section II - FOCUSED AREA EVALUATED IN THIS DOCUMENT: This section is written to explain the area that has been evaluated in detail in this review, which focuses on areas of concern to the City and BARC. Although from time to time, information that may relate to the entire project, including geographical areas outside of the City and BARC, have also been considered and discussed in this review, with the primary focus given to the portions of the alignment between approximately Station (STA.) 115+00 through 123+00 as shown on plan sheets in DEIS Appendix G.02.
• Section III – SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED IN DEIS AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY AND BARC: This section is written to summarize information from the DEIS and has been divided into four subsections.
o Section IIIa – Extent of Infrastructures: This section is written to present the details of the tunnel and tunnel portal, TMF and MOW locations, and viaducts as it relates to the proposed alignments in the DEIS. Each infrastructure has been discussed as a subsection. The purpose of this section was to outline features that are important when discussing the geotechnical / geological assessments such as but not limited to the typical depths of the tunnel, location of the transitional areas, height of fill, etc. along the proposed alignments within the limits of the City and BARC.
o Section IIIb – Extent of Geological and Geotechnical Information: This section is written to present the details of the subsurface strata, soil properties, groundwater, and bedrock provided in the DEIS along the proposed alignments that are within the limits of the City and BARC. Each geological feature has been discussed as a sub section.
o Section IIIc – Extent of Instrumentation Plan: This section is written to outline what is stated in the DEIS as it relates to the instrumentation plan that is referred as part of the mitigation measures for risks.
10
o Section IIId – Extent of Foundation Information for Viaducts: This section is written to discuss the geotechnical information provided as it relates to the drilled shafts associated with viaduct pier foundations.
• Section IV – INFORMATION GATHERED FROM LITERATURE: This section is written to provide additional perspective based on information available in the literature to present some of the engineering concerns that could be useful in the assessment of the information provided in DEIS. Sources used to write this section are listed in the above section as bullets. This section has been divided into seven subsections:
o Section IVa - Geology within the City and BARC: This section is written to expand the available literature as it relates to the geology within the project area. Such information was added to compliment what has been provided in the DEIS and to emphasize the variability in the area as it relates to soil strata and associated problems.
o Section IVb - Seismic Activity within the Region: This section is written to emphasize the recent studies related to the seismic activity of the area and to point out such activities do exist and may effect a wide region.
o Section IVc - Mining Activity within the Region: This section is written to specifically overlay the available information from the literature as it relates to the historical mining activities within the alignment and BARC facility areas. Potential consequences of missing some of this information has also been discussed with examples from other tunneling projects. Such information has been provided to outline the importance of capturing such subsurface conditions accurately as missing information could potentially have impacts at the ground surface and affect the safety.
o Section IVd - Summary of Previous Relevant Research Related to Effects of Vibration: This section is written to point out that vibrations within high-speed tunnels are complex and may create pressure waves on the tunnel lining, therefore possibly within the soil surrounding the tunnel. Such information has been provided because it appears that DEIS does not discuss these concerns in detail.
o Section IVe - Summary of Tunneling Operations Provided in DEIS and Comparison with Literature: This section is written to focus on the tunnel boring methods that were referenced in the DEIS and the thoughts of other researchers as it relates to the advantages and disadvantages of these methods. Such information is discussed to point out that selection of the appropriate tunnel boring method and operation of the system are related to the geological factors
11
within a given project site and are important factors during construction in relation to the safety of the above ground structures.
o Section IVf - Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Tunnels for Trains Constructed Through Soil Strata: This section is written to highlight the potential long-term effects of tunneling through soil layers as it relates to settlement and deformation-related groundwater infiltrations.
o Section IVg – Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Groundwater and Train Tunnels: This section is written to provide examples from other projects where the tunnels were constructed below groundwater and to outline the potential dangers and importance of groundwater for tunneling applications.
• Section V – LIST OF MISSING INFORMATION IN THE DEIS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE SELECTED ALIGNMENTS: This section is written to provide an overview in terms of a bullet list of what is considered as important information regarding the geological and geotechnical factors that are believed to be missing in the DEIS.
• Section VI – POSSIBLE GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS IF THE PROJECT PURUSES: This section is written to provide a broad overview of potential/possible short and long-term impacts as it relates to geological and geotechnical factors.
• Section VII – CONCLUSIONS
12
II. FOCUSED AREA EVALUATED IN THIS DOCUMENT
After eliminating all the other alternatives, the DEIS provides two possible alignments, which are referred as J and J1 alignments. Although there are slight differences between these two alignments, in general, both alignments run somewhat parallel to each other and parallel to Baltimore-Washington Parkway (BWP). Part of the proposed alignments impact the historic City of Greenbelt (City) and Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC).
Figure 4 was created for this review (not from DEIS) to depict the approximate locations of both the J and J1 alignments in comparison to the boundaries of the City and BARC. This figure has been created for this review based on the information provided in DEIS. Based on the boundaries and the alignments outlined in DEIS (and depicted in Figure 4), it is determined that the most relevant sections of the alignment lie between Stations 115+00 and 123+00. It should be noted that the term “Stations” used in this document is referred in the DEIS (in Appendix G) as STA. When the term is coupled with numbers, it refers to certain locations along the alignments within the project site (not to be confused with the term used to refer to train stations such as DC, Baltimore, etc.). Therefore, the primary focus of this review has been based on the information provided in DEIS in between these Stations. The approximate locations of these Stations as it relates to the City and BARC boundaries can be seen in Figure 4.
DEIS indicates that each alignment for the train system (i.e., J and J1) has six alternatives related to the location of the TMF, MOW, and associated smaller ancillary facilities. When they are grouped in terms of the impact on the City and BARC, the six alternatives narrow down to three alternatives per alignment:
• J alignment alternatives: . J-01 and J-04 have the same impact (i.e., MD198 alternative) . J-02 and J-05 have the same impact (i.e., BARC Airstrip alternative) . J-03 and J-06 have the same impact (i.e., BARC West alternative)
• J1 alignment alternatives: . J1-01 and J1-04 have the same impact (i.e., MD198 alternative) . J1-02 and J1-05 have the same impact (i.e., BARC Airstrip alternative) . J1-03 and J1-06 have the same impact (i.e., BARC West alternative)
Footprints of these alternatives within the limits of the City and BARC are provided in Figures 5 and 6. The impacted area boundaries in these figures were provided by FRA as can be found from the following link: https://maryland.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard/index.html#/3126ba14ebf54d3887e95f 257ca5d054
The boundary of the City and BARC has been added to these figures (herein referred as approximate boundary of interest) as part of this review.
13
Figure 4. Locations of the J and J1 alignments within the boundaries of the City and BARC.
14
Approximate Boundary of interest
Green shades show impacted areas
Residential area
(a) Alternative J-01 and J-04 (MD 198)
15
Approximate Boundary of interest
TMF 2
Purple shades show impacted areas
(b) Alternative J-02 and J-05 (BARC Airstrip - TMF Option 2)
16
TMF 1
Approximate Boundary of interest
Pink shades show impacted areas
(c) Alternative J-03 and J-06 (BARC West - TMF Option 1)
Figure 5. Footprints of the alternatives along the J alignment within the limits of the City and BARC
17
Approximate Boundary of interest
Grey shades show impacted areas
(a) Alternative J1-01 and J1-04 (MD 198)
18
Approximate Boundary of interest
TMF 2
Green shades show impacted areas
(b) Alternative J1-02 and J1-05 (BARC Airstrip – TMF Option 2)
19
TMF 1
Approximate Boundary of interest
Yellow shades show impacted areas
(c) Alternative J1-03 and J1-06 (BARC West – TMF Option 1)
Figure 6. Footprints of the alternatives along the J1 alignment within the limits of the City and BARC
Of the three alternatives, as can be seen from Figures 5 and 6, alternatives associated with BARC options have impacts to BARC. Additionally, even though MD198 alternative does not impact the BARC area, the proximity of the features associated with MD198 alternative along the J alignment to an existing residential area raises concern (Figure 5a). Within the City limits, the impact from the proposed project appears to be primarily based on tunnels and a transition zone between the tunnels and viaducts that occur within the vicinity of a residential area shown in Figure 5a.
20
III. SUMMARY OF INFORMATION PROVIDED IN DEIS AS IT RELATES TO THE CITY AND BARC
IIIa. Extent of Infrastructures
IIIa-1. Tunnel and Tunnel Portal
This section is written to present the details of the tunnel and tunnel portals as it relates to the limits of the City in terms of the separation between the ground surface and the top of the tunnels and location of the transitional areas in terms of the built environment on the ground surface.
Below provides the summary of the tunnel infrastructures within the J and J1 alignments within the Stations of 115+000 through 123+000. Although the exact locations of these tunnels vary from one alignment to another, in terms of their distances from the ground surface and how they transition to tunnel portals and viaducts, both options appear to be similar to each other.
J alignment
Figure 7 has been created for this review by adapting the provided information from the DEIS for the area between the Stations 115+000 and 118+300. The existing ground and the tunnel zones have been color coded to make it easier to interpret the presented information.
The zone between the Stations 115+000 and 118+300 are referred in DEIS as deep tunnels. The term deep tunnels have been defined in the DEIS for the zones where the separation between the tunnel lining and ground surface to be minimum of 15 m (50 ft). Figure 7a shows the conditions between Stations 115+000 and 116+200, where the separation between the top of the tunnel and ground surface appear to be approximately 60 m (200 ft). From Station 116+200 until Station 118+300, the tunnel starts to move towards the ground surface and the separation between the top of the tunnel and the ground surface quickly decreases to 15 m (50 ft). Considering that the diameter of the tunnel is outlined in DEIS to be approximately 15 m (50 ft) (including the lining), as the transition occurs from Stations 116+200 towards the 118+300, the separation from the ground surface to the top of the tunnel decrease from about 4 times the diameter of the tunnel to one diameter of the tunnel. As the Stations progress through the alignment, as can be seen from Figure 7b, the transition occurs from the deep tunnel sections towards the tunnel portal. The typical deep tunnel construction detail section can be seen in Appendix G.02, Part 1, Drawing No. TY-06, Section A.
21
Distance between top of tunnel and Existing ground ground surface (> 15 m (50 ft))
(a) Stations 115+00 through 116+800
Existing ground Distance between top of tunnel and ground surface (~ 15 m (50 ft))
(b) Stations 116+800 through 118+300
Figure 7. J Tunnel alignment: longitudinal Stations 115+000 through 118+300
22
Commentary-5: Transition of the tunnel into shallower ground appears to be occurring right underneath a large residential area. Justification of why this transition has been proposed to occur within this particular area could not be found in the DEIS. Such location could potentially have major impact on the residents of the area where this transition is proposed. Also, no geotechnical / geological discussions could be found to justify that 60 m (200 ft) separation between the ground surface and the top of the tunnel is sufficient for the long-term stability of the ground surface.
Starting at 118+320, the deep tunnel transitions into becoming what is referenced in the DEIS as cut and cover tunnel and the separation between the tunnel lining and the ground surface transition from minimum 15 m (50 ft) to minimum 3 m (10 ft). The cut and cover tunnels appear to be approximately 15 m (50 ft) wide and constructed approximately in half-circular shapes. The typical cut and cover construction detail section can be seen in Appendix G.02, Part 1, Drawing No. TY-06, Section B.
At approximately 118+800, the cut and cover tunnel section transitions into open cut portal, where portals appear to be approximately 18 m (60 ft) wide U-shaped concrete structures. The typical cut and cover construction detail section can be seen in Appendix G.02, Part 1, Drawing No. TY-06, Section D. At 118+950 the tunnel starts to transition into a viaduct system, which is referred in the DEIS as transition portal. This condition extends until Station 119+950. The typical cut and cover construction detail section can be seen in Appendix G.02, Part 1, Drawing No. TY-06, Section C.
Figure 8 was created for this review by adapting the information provided in the DEIS to present longitudinal sections between Stations 118+950 and 119+800 and the associated aerial photo along the alignment.
J1 alignment
Figure 9 has been put together for this review to show the longitudinal sections between Stations 115+000 and 118+200. Although the elevation of the deep tunnel in the J1 alignment appears to be similar as in the J alignment, due to the existing topography, the separation between the ground surface and the top of the tunnel is slightly shorter in this alignment (i.e., around 50 m (160 ft)). At around Station 117+600, the top of the tunnel is approximately 20 m (65 ft) from the ground surface. As can be seen from Figure 9b, this area coincides with a residential area nearby a high school.
23
Existing ground
Figure 8. J Tunnel alignment: longitudinal section 118+300 through 119+800
Existing ground
(a) Stations 115+000 through 116+800
24
Distance between top of tunnel and ground surface (~ 20 m (66 ft))
Existing ground
(b) Stations 116+800 through 118+300
Figure 9. J1 Tunnel alignment: longitudinal sections 115+000 through 118+300
Figure 10 (created for this review based on DEIS) shows the longitudinal sections between Stations 118+300 and 119+800 and the aerial photo along the alignment. At Section 118+200 it appears that the tunnel daylights and forms the open cut tunnel portal, however this detail is not clear from the drawings provided. This is because at Station 118+300, the drawing shows the top of the tunnel, which is confusing. At Station 118+800, the guideway splits to provide access to the TMF and MOW structures that are proposed to be located within the limits of BARC. However, details of the tunnel portal transition in this area is also not clear because the DEIS drawings (Appendix G.02, Part 1, TY-06) provided for this feature simply refers to general example “tunnel portal (transition)” designs, but does not explain which of the design options provided would be selected for specific areas. Therefore, the DEIS doesn’t provide specific design details for this area.
Commentary-6: As for the comments for the J alignment, for the J1 alignment as well, as can be seen from Figure 9, it is not clear why the transition from deep tunnel to the shallower tunnel was selected to occur close to a well-established residential area and how such consideration was justified based on geotechnical and geological information. Additionally, for the J1 alignment, the tunnel construction details between Stations 118+200 through 119+800 is not clear. The provided drawings by the DEIS do not differentiate the type of tunnel portal construction, therefore it is not clear whether the
25
ground will be excavated and if so, will there be open cut portal sections, cut and cover sections, or something else?
Existing ground
Figure 10. J1 Tunnel alignment: longitudinal section 118+300 through 119+800
IIIa-2. TMF and MOWs
This section is written to present the topographical conditions outlined in the DEIS as it relates to TMF and MOW locations within limits of BARC.
Trainset maintenance facility (TMF) is defined in DEIS as a facility to store, maintain, repair, and clean the 16-car SCMAGLEV trains. The key elements at a TMF are listed as a storage yard for the trains; maintenance building for inspection, factory and repair shops; miscellaneous storage building, administrative offices, and employee/visitor parking.
Maintenance of way facility (MOW) is defined in DEIS as a facility at an above ground location that consists of the offices, equipment, and materials for maintaining and repairing the SCMAGLEV guideway. It is stated that a SCMAGLEV system may have one or more MOW facilities to accommodate the requirements to maintain and repair the guideway if needed.
26
The structures within a TMF site are provided in DEIS with an example layout as shown in Figure 11 (directly copied from DEIS). The shapes of the impacted areas shown in Figures 5 and 6 are explained based on the detail shown in Figure 12 (directly copied from DEIS).
Figure 11. Contents of an example TMF site for SCMAGLEV
Storage Tracks Inspection Shop Repair Shop Factory
Substation Substation
Figure 12. Example details of the TMF wedge shapes shown in Figures 5 and 6.
Figures 5b and 6b show the locations of the TMF within east of BWP. In the DEIS, this area is referred as BARC airstrip and also as TMF Option 2. Appendix G-02, Part 3 of 7 provide information regarding TMF and MOWs.
Figure 13 (modified from the DEIS) shows the layout of the TMF within this area. The yellow shaded area show the MOW, substations, and parking and orange shaded area shows the TMF layout. These shades were added for this review to what has been provided by DEIS for clarity. The guideway for this facility are identified to be between Stations 32+000 through 33+550 for J alignment and Stations 102+800 through 105+400 for J1 alignment (both indicating the same area with different Station identifications). These Station numbers appear to be subsets and not to be confused with the Station numbers depicted in Figure 4 for the alignments.
27
MOW TMF
Figure 13. Layout of BARC airstrip TMF option (TMF option 2, proposed in DEIS as part of alternatives for J-02, J-05, J1-02, and J1-05)
Figure 14 shows the longitudinal Stations for the TMF in BARC airstrip (as it relates to Figure 13). The green shaded areas (added as part of this review) show the fill over the ground surface and yellow shaded areas show the existing ground. Areas above the yellow shaded zone but below the red dash line indicate removal of ground surface.
Fill ~ 12 m (39 ft) Existing ground
Figure 14. Longitudinal Stations along the MOW and TMF at BARC airstrip alternative
Figure 14 indicates that the area designated for TMF option 2 will be filled with approximately 12 m (39 ft). However there are no systematic cross-sections provided for the TMF, so at some locations much higher fills may be needed. Also no information could be found describing the extent of the cut or fill within the footprint of MOW area. The access to the MOW and TMF area require ramps crossing the BWP. See DEIS, Appendix G.02, Part 3 of 7, sections beginning at drawing number TMF-06. Figures 5c and 6c (from FRA) show the locations of the TMF within west of BWP. In the DEIS, this area is referred to as BARC west and also as TMF Option 1. Figure 15 shows the layout of the TMF within
28
TMF
MOW
Figure 15. Layout of BARC west TMF option (TMF option 1 proposed in DEIS as part of alternatives J-03, J-06, J1-03, and J1-06)
29
this area. Shades have been added to this figure in this review to provide clarity. The yellow shaded areas show the MOW and substations and parking and orange shaded area shows the TMF layout. The guideway Stations for this facility are identified between Stations 32+000 through 34+150 for J alignment and Stations 102+600 through 104+750 for J1 alignment (both indicating the same area with different section identifications). As for the J alignment, these Station numbers appear to be subsets and not to be confused with the Station numbers depicted in Figure 4 for the alignments.
Figure 16 shows the longitudinal Stations for the TMF in BARC west (as it relates to Figure 15). Shades have been added to this figure in this review to provide clarity. The green shaded areas show the fill over the surface ground and yellow shaded areas show the existing ground. Areas above the yellow shaded zone but below the red dash line indicate removal of ground surface. Figure 16 indicates that the area designated for TMF option 1 will approximately be filled 17 m (56 ft). However as stated for the BARC airstrip option, there are no systematic cross-sections provided for the TMF in BARC west, so at some locations much higher fills may be needed. Also no information could be found describing the extent of the cut or fill within the footprint of MOW area. Similar to the BARC airstrip access, the access to BARC west will also require ramps over the BWP. Viaduct piers along the BWP are proposed to be constructed within the median of the roadway.
Fill ~ 17 m (56 ft)
Figure 16. Longitudinal Stations along the MOW and TMF at BARC west alternative
The DEIS includes detailed information regarding the proposed footprint of the TMF and MOW facilities within BARC. It can be seen that most of the facilities will be constructed on a horizontal platform, by filling the ground, but the provided plans only show the upper surfaces of the platform. However, the slopes that may become necessary at the perimeter of the outlined area have not been discussed in the DEIS. If slopes will be used, a much larger area of the BARC will most likely be utilized. If instead of slopes, retaining structures are foreseen at the ends of the fills, discussion related to how such retaining structures will influence the stability of the slopes could not be found in the DEIS.
30
The connection of these facilities to the main guideline appear to have been laid out in detail. Appendix G12 of DEIS provides information regarding the selection criteria that was used to propose the locations of the TMF and MOW. As part of the selection criteria, it is stated that “avoiding impacts to residential properties through this densely populated corridor presents the single biggest challenge to siting a TMF”. Summary of the assessment of the area are provided with a Table in DEIS, Appendix G12 (herein referred as Table 1).
Table 1. Insert from DEIS Outlining the Impacts of the BARC TMF and MOW Facilities
As can be seen from Table 1, the provided discussions in DEIS appear to have focused more in line with planning and potential re-use of the land.
Commentary-7: Details of geotechnical or geological assessments to confirm the suitability of the proposed TMF and MOW locations could not be found. Therefore it is not clear whether or not such considerations were factored in into the decision-making process.
IIIa-3. Viaducts
This section is written to present the locations of the proposed viaducts within limits of BARC. The DEIS outlines a single viaduct structure as approximately 14 m (46 ft) wide that will carry two guideways. The right-of-way width for the viaduct is allocated as 22 m (70 ft). A brief summary of information regarding viaducts for J and J1 alignments are provided below.
J alignment
Viaduct structures start at Station 119+950 (Figure 4) and extent throughout the rest of the areas within the limits of the BARC. The maximum height of the viaduct within the limits of BARC appears to be approximately 32 m (105 ft).
31
J1 alignment
Viaduct structures start at Station 120+000 (Figure 4) and extent throughout the rest of the areas within the limits of the BARC. The maximum height of the viaduct within the limits of BARC appears to be approximately 28 m (92 ft). Compared to the J alignment, the viaduct in J1 alignment appear to be approximately 15 to 20 m (49 to 66 ft) above the ground surface.
IIIb. Extent of Geological and Geotechnical Information
This sections is written to present the details of the information provided in DEIS as it relates to the subsurface stratification, soil properties, bedrock, and groundwater along the proposed alignments.
IIIb-1. Subsurface Stratification
Within the vicinity of the City and BARC limits, the DEIS only shows 3 boreholes. These boreholes are designated as BWP-21, BWP-06a, and BWP-06.1 Among these, only BWP-06 is inside the limits of the City and BARC. The location of these boreholes in comparison to the proposed alignments are shown in Figure 4. When compared with proposed locations of TMF and MOW (Figures 5 and 6), none of the borings are within those footprints.
Appendix G13 of the DEIS provides two sets of longitudinal sections where the subsurface geology has been interpreted. One of those sets of interpretation is created by Gall Zeidler Consultants (GZC) and provided in Appendix C of Appendix G13 and the set created by Louis Berger (LB) and provided in Appendix D of Appendix G13.
For an assessment of the provided information, both sections provided by GZC and LB were compared with each other in Figure 17. Locations of the borings near these sections are shown between the Stations 114+500 and 117+500.
In the case of LB sections, the strata has been divided from the ground surface down as (i) fill/unconsolidated sediments, (ii) mostly very dense sand with very stiff/hard clay/silt layer, and (iii) mostly very stiff/hard clay/silt with very dense sand layer. Such strata could presumably be observed from BWP-21 and BWP-06a borings but the boring BWP-06 is not deep enough to confirm the entirety of the proclaimed strata. Also none of these three borings were deep enough to confirm the location of the bedrock, therefore the presence of bedrock shown in
1 DEIS Appendix G02 shows a soil boring sample, BWP-10, as being located next to the Eleanor Roosevelt High School. However, Appendix G13, Figure 1, places this soil sample further north, closer to the Patuxent Research Refuge. This is just one example of several inconsistencies between these two appendices related to the location of soil borings. Compare DEIS Appendix G02 at pp-07, 13, 18, 21, 26, 29, 37, and DEIS Appendix G13, Figure 1 (“Plan view of boreholes from the Preliminary Ground Investigation Program”). FRA should resolve these inconsistencies and ensure that these two appendices and all references to these soil borings are consistent throughout the DEIS.
32
these sections are not confirmed. Information shown between Stations 117+500 and 123+000 is not confirmed by the subsurface investigation as there are no boreholes in between these Stations.
In the case of GZC sections, the strata from the ground surface down only shows one zone that is identified as Patapsco formations and Arundel formations. None of the borings were deep
33
Water table
Alignment of the tunnel
(a) longitudinal section between Stations 113+500 and 118+500 by LB
(b) longitudinal section between Stations 113+500 and 118+500 by GZC
34
Alignment of the tunnel
(c) longitudinal section between Stations 118+500 and 123+000 by LB Alignment of the viaduct
(d) longitudinal section between Stations 118+500 and 123+000 by GZC
Figure 17. Comparison of longitudinal sections by LB and GZC along the limits of the City and BARC
35
enough to confirm the location of the bedrock, hence GZC sections (rightly so) do not show the presence of the bedrock in these sections. Similarly to the LB sections, information shown between Stations 117+500 and 123+000 is not confirmed by any nearby subsurface investigation conducted by FRA.
Even though there is only very limited borings and laboratory testing, the DEIS does discuss the geology within the Stations that are within the vicinity of the City and BRAC. Below is the summary of what has been provided in DEIS.
J alignment
Station 115+00 through 118+810
This zone is captured in Figure 17a and b. The DEIS expresses the geology of this region as:
“The geology consists of unconsolidated fill and Cretaceous Potomac Group sediments. The Potomac group sediments are typically very stiff/hard clays/silts w/very stiff sands for the upper deposits (Patapsco Fm.) and very dense sands with very stiff/hard clay/silt layers of the Patuxent Fm
Tunneling will proceed through dense sands and silty sands of the Patapsco Fm. and Patuxent Fm., with the majority of the run within a clay-rich zone of the Patapsco Fm. The southern end of the run will be through a mixed face of the Patapsco Fm. and Patuxent Fm. sands/silty sands and fully within the Patapsco Fm., with hard to very hard lean clays (CL) and fat clays (CH) with lenses of sandy silts (ML), until reaching the portal. Both alignment alternatives will excavate within the groundwater table.”
Commentary-8: This description may be accurate, but this conclusion is not supported by the information in the DEIS. Based on the existing information provided in the DEIS, it is not possible to confirm the claims related to density and stiffness of these layers. Also, the limited laboratory test results do not confirm the presence of fat clays (CH) in this particular area. Either there is additional information that has not been shared with general public or the information provided in the above quote is very generic and primarily coming from the literature. This may mean that site specific geological and geotechnical assessments may not have been conducted in selecting this alignment.
Station 118+810 through 119+441
The DEIS expresses the geology of this region as (the text was made bold for this review):
“The subgrade would consist of alternating layer of dense, very dense sand and very stiff-hard clay. A mat foundation would support the portal foundation. A mat can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2.5 tsf (tons per square foot) and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 130 pci (pounds cubic inch, using 12 in. by 12. plate) at or below El. +37 m (el. +120
36
ft). There would be a long-term settlement of less than 13 mm (0.5 in.). Groundwater would be encountered at the foundation bottom elevation. Temporary groundwater pumping would be required. Long-term resistance to uplift forces is not likely required as the head would be about 9 m as the deadweight of the structure would resist uplift forces.”
Commentary-9: Considering that there is no subsurface data that was obtained from the borings within these Stations (which corresponds to the tunnel transition zone), it is not possible to confirm the information provided above. With no consolidation test result presented in DEIS from the field samples, it is not clear how FRA can make conclusions regarding a settlement estimate. Also, if the temporary groundwater pumping would be required, from which geological strata would this water be pumped from and how will the pumping of water not potentially cause settlement more than 13 mm (0.5 in.)? No evidence of settlement calculations were provided. FRA should provide a complete set of calculations to support this finding, including relevant soil conditions, elastic consolidation data, and secondary settlement calculations. Additionally, no information is provided regarding the timeline for the proposed temporary groundwater pumping. This timeline should also be provided. As shown in Figures 7 and 8, this area is very close to an existing residential area. Therefore, accurate assessment of the subsurface conditions and the potential major implications of this alignment on the residential area does not appear to be evaluated based on site specific geotechnical and geological information.
Station 119+441 through 119+950
DEIS expresses the geology of this region as:
“Similar subgrade to the section covered by Stations 118+810 thru 119+441 but is less dense. The subgrade would need to be over-excavated 1.0 m, and exposed surface as well as excavated soils would be re-placed in maximum 0.2 m lifts and each lift be compacted to 95 percent of the soils modified proctor density as observed in ASTM D 1557.
A mat foundation can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 1.5 tsf and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 100 pci (using 12 in. by 12 in. plate) at or below El. +46 m (El. +150 ft).”
Commentary-10: Considering that there is no subsurface data through boreholes within these Stations, it is not clear how the foundation design considerations were determined for this specific area. Either there is information not being provided to the general public or the above written information is entirely generic and may not relate to this project or this location.
37
Station 119+950 through 123+000
Commentary-11: No written text is provided to discuss the geological content of the section in between these Stations. Considering that this area will serve as the foundation of the viaducts, it is not clear how the area has been assessed for suitability in terms of geological and geotechnical factors.
J1 alignment
Station 115+00 through 119+941
DEIS expresses the geology of this region as:
“The geology consists of unconsolidated fill and Cretaceous Potomac Group sediments. The Potomac group sediments are typically very stiff/hard clays/silts with very stiff sands for the upper deposits (Patapsco Fm.) and very dense sands with very stiff/hard clay/silt layers of the Patuxent Fm.
Tunneling will proceed through dense sands and silty sands of the Patapsco Fm. and Patuxent Fm., with the majority of the run within a clay-rich zone of the Patapsco Fm. The southern end of the run will be through a mixed face of the Patapsco Fm. clays and Patuxent Fm. sands and fully within the Patapsco Fm., with hard to very hard lean clays (CL) and fat clays (CH) with lenses of sandy silts (ML), until reaching the portal. Both alignment alternatives will excavate within the groundwater table.”
Commentary-12: Similar comments as for the same area considered for the J alignment.
Station 119+941 through 119+520
DEIS has expressed the geology of this region as (the text was made bold for this review):
“The subgrade would consist of alternating layer of dense, very dense Sand and very stiff-hard Clay. However, because of disturbance of the near-surface soils, the foundation subgrade the upper 0.5 m of the exposed soils must be excavated and re-placed in maximum 0.2 m lifts and each lift must be compacted to 95 percent of the soils modified proctor density as observed in ASTM D 1557.
A mat foundation would support the portal foundation. A mat can be designed using an allowable bearing capacity of 2.5 tsf and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 120 pci (using 12 in. by 12. Plate) at or below El. +28 m (el. +92 ft). There would be a long-term settlement of about 13 mm (0.5 in.).
38
Groundwater is within 3 m of the foundation bottom. Temporary groundwater pumping would be required. Long-term resistance to uplift forces is not likely required as the head would be about 4.6 m. and deadweight of the structure would resist uplift forces.”
Commentary-13: Similar comments as for the J alignment.
Station 119+520 through 120+230
DEIS has expressed the geology of this region as:
“Similar subgrade to section between Station 119+941 through 119+520, but is less dense. For uniform subgrade, an over-excavation of 1.0 m, and re-placing of excavated granular soils would be required. Backfill should be made in maximum 0.2 m lifts and each lift must be compacted to 95 percent of the soils modified proctor density as observed in ASTM D 1557.
A foundation support can be used with an allowable bearing capacity of 1.5 tsf and a coefficient of subgrade reaction of 100 pci (using 12 in. by 12. plate) at or below El. +36 m (El. +118 ft).”
Commentary-14: No information could be found in DEIS to confirm the above written statement. Similar unsupported statements were made for the J alignment.
Station 119+950 through 123+000
Commentary-15: No written text could be found that discusses the geological content of the section in between these Stations. Considering that this area will serve as the foundation of the viaducts, it is not clear how the area has been assessed for suitability in terms of geological and geotechnical factors. Similar comments as for the J alignment.
The following has been provided in the DEIS (Appendix G-13) as generic information (text was made bold for this review) :
“Preliminary ground investigation boreholes suggest the cross passages would likely to be excavated through dense to very dense water saturated silty sands of medium to coarse grained size. The sediments are Holocene alluvium atop the pre-Cretaceous bedrock. However, the fully establish conditions, additional exploratory borings at the approximate location of each cross passage will be necessary to investigate site specific geotechnical conditions related to the soils, and groundwater present.”
Commentary-16: There are two issues with the above statement: (1) The DEIS refers to very specific observations noted from the preliminary ground investigation boreholes. However, the evidence of such observations have not been presented in the DEIS and
39
the associated longitudinal geological sections. Either some of the information is not shared with the general public or the above statement written in DEIS is not based on specific evidence. (2) Since the alignments have been narrowed down to two and considering that these two alignments are essentially within the same geological formations, at this stage, in order to verify the correctness of the chosen alignments (and associated features such as depths to proposed tunnels, locations to tunnel transition zones, locations of viaducts etc.) the FRA should have already conducted a ground investigation with more sufficient information. Based on the above cited information, it appears that technical (i.e., from geotechnical and geological perspective) suitability of the proposed alignments are most likely not evaluated in detail. Hence, the DEIS appears to be not sufficient to assess / confirm such proposed alignments.
IIIb-2. Soil Properties
Table 2 summarizes the index property test results, which by definition is used to classify soil samples during the subsurface investigation. This table has been created for this review based on the information provided in the DEIS.
Table 2. Summary of index property test results presented in DEIS
Based on the very limited information provided in Table 2, it appears that what is referred by LB as fill/unconsolidated sediments (as shown in Figure 17a and c) is primarily a non-plastic silty sand to poorly graded sand/silty sand. What is referred as mostly very dense sand with very stiff/hard clay/silt layer is primarily a low plastic clay and what is referred as mostly very stiff/hard clay/silt with very dense sand layer is primarily nonplastic silt.
Commentary-17: Table 2 only presents information that is typically referred in the engineering community as index properties. Based on the limited results provided in DEIS, it can be seen that the information from the literature is very basic and general (and is not comprehensive enough for FRA to justify engineering decisions) (as referred by LB) and may only partially reflect what is in the ground. It is not clear when creating geological sections how such information was used to determine the continuity of the subsurface conditions presented in the DEIS and how such information was utilized in evaluating the suitability of the proposed alignments. Boring logs for the subsurface investigation is not provided in the DEIS.
40
Additionally, the DEIS refers to terms such as dense and stiff to describe the soil conditions in the ground. However, no in-situ or laboratory test results were provided to confirm such descriptions.
Commentary-18: Considering the complexity of the geology in this region, not having such information on the consistency/density of the subsurface soils, it is not clear how the detailed assessment and suitability of the geological conditions along the proposed alignment within the City and BARC were assessed. Either there is information that has not been provided to the general public or the assessments are predominantly based on literature that may or may not be correct for specific locations.
Section 4.14 of the DEIS refers to the soils and farmlands along the project site. In that section, the DEIS states: “FRA conducted an analysis of resources based on readily and publicly available desktop information…” and “FRA reviewed existing data to document the presence or absence of soil hazards that may be encountered by the SCMAGLEV Project.
Potential soil hazards evaluated include:
• Linear Extensibility (Shrink-Swell Potential) – the relative change in volume to be expected with changes in moisture content. The NRCS describes this potential for change as “low,” “moderate,” “high,” or “very high.” • Erosion Hazard – based on soil erodibility (K factor), slope, and content of rock fragments. The hazard rating is described as "slight," "moderate," "severe," or “very severe.” • Risk of Corrosion – indication of where soil-induced electrochemical or chemical action may weaken concrete or uncoated steel. The risk of corrosion is expressed as “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” ”
Commentary-19: As outlined by FRA, overall, the project site is highly variable in terms of the potential concerns associated with the properties of the soil. However, without the detailed assessment of the above concerns in regards to the (i) proposed tunnel alignment,(ii) specific locations where the transition from the tunnel to above ground facilities, and (iii) locations of the above ground facilities, it is not possible to confirm the suitability of the proposed alignment and locations presented in the DEIS.
IIIb-3. Groundwater Conditions
Table 3 was created for this review based on the information provided in DEIS. This table provides the summary of the water table observations from the three borings around the vicinity of the City (Figure 17).
41
Commentary-20: Considering the proximity of the BWP-6A and BWP-6 borings, the difference in water levels being almost 30 ft apart most likely indicate the complexity of the groundwater system in the region. Section 3.4 of Appendix G13 provides generic information about groundwater regionally but no discussion or evaluations could be found in DEIS as it relates to the impact of shallow groundwater on the stability of the TMF and MOW facilities within BARC.
Table 3. Summary of Water Table Information from Borings
Of the three aquifers identified in the DEIS, as shown in Appendix A of Appendix G13, the alignments of the guideways and the TMF/MOW facilities lie within the upper most boundary of the Patuxent aquifer system. The following figure was copied from the DEIS (herein referred as Figure 18).
42
Figure 18. Patuxent aquifer system and alignment of the train system The red dotted line within Figure 18 indicates the proposed alignment of the guideway. The black lines show the depths to groundwater. 0 means, groundwater is very close or at the ground surface.
Commentary-21: Considering that shallow groundwater conditions could potentially impact the stability of the tunnel and TMF and MOW facilities, it is not clear why the selected alignments were not adjusted to be in zones where the groundwater could be much deeper so that the tunnel and the transition portals can be constructed above groundwater level. This could potentially eliminate some of the concerns regarding stability.
When approximate locations from the alignment plan in the DEIS is compared against the groundwater contours shown in Figure 18, it becomes evident that such consideration was not discussed as the groundwater gets shallower within the limits of the City and BARC (Table 3) and also moving towards north (outside of the BARC).
43
Appr. locations of the City and BARC
Such evidence can be seen from the borehole information provided in BWP-09 (please see below). Location of the BWP-09 compared to the limits of the City and BARC is shown in Figure 4.
When the water level in BWP-09 (as shown below) is compared against the water level listed in Table 3 for BWP-06 and BWP-06a, it appears that in a short distance, the groundwater level changes from ~ 60 ft to ~ 30 ft to ~ 13 ft. Considering the areas where the transition from tunnel to viaducts are proposed (Figures 7 and 9), as well as the locations of the TMF and MOWs within BARC (Figures 13 and 15), it seems that such detailed (but still preliminary) considerations has not been incorporated into the decisions to evaluate the suitability of the proposed locations.
Water table ~ @ elevation 28 m Ground surface ~ @ elevation 32 m Water is ~ 4 m (13 ft) below surface
44
The following has been provided in the DEIS (Appendix G-13) as generic information (text was made bold for this review):
“The range of groundwater levels is shown on the geological and geotechnical profiles in Appendix C and D. The soils exposed in the cross passages will be below the groundwater table. For construction, the groundwater level at each cross-passage location will be established by the Design-Build Contractor.”
Commentary-22: It is understandable that during construction some level of unknown facts could be discovered but the above statement appears to indicate that the majority of the geotechnical and geological assessments provided in the DEIS still rely on the literature, instead of site-specific investigations. Considering the magnitude and the importance of the proposed project and the potential impact to this very densely populated region, it is not clear how from geotechnical and geological considerations that the proposed alignments were predetermined to be the best alternatives for this project.
“Ground treatment is required to minimize groundwater inflows and prevent the ground from raveling, running and flowing in soils below the water table and in the presence of semi- perched groundwater. Ground treatment, e.g., jet grouting, permeations grouting (chemical or cement grout), must be performed prior to breakouts for the cross-passage excavations to improve the ground strength, to stabilize the ground around the existing tunnels; to increase stand up time for the excavation and allow installation of ground support; and, to control or limit groundwater inflows during excavation. An additional method that could be used is ground freezing, which will serve to stabilize soils and cut-off ground water inflow during excavation. Dewatering is not an option for soil stabilization, as it would likely induce settlement of adjacent surface structures. The Design-Build Contractor must consider groundwater conditions as well as surface access for ground treatment at each cross-passage site.”
Commentary-23: The above statements indicate that the information (e.g., groundwater conditions, bedrock depths, ground treatment options, etc.) provided in the DEIS is mostly of generic nature and not site specific. If it is recognized that the area has high groundwater and complex geology, it is not clear why FRA has not yet conducted a much more detailed investigation to assess the suitability of the proposed alignments and the associated facilities in regards to the site-specific geological and geotechnical factors.
Furthermore the following is written in Ch. 4-10 in the DEIS:
45
“Impacts to groundwater resources could occur during construction from dewatering during excavations for tunnels… could affect groundwater quantity and flows. Due to the regionally high-water table, activities such as tunneling, and underground station construction would take place just above or within the identified aquifers. Dewatering could result in a depression of the cone of groundwater and possibly result in a loss of aquifer recharge capacity to nearby WHPA supply wells and surface water bodies. Nearby supply wells located at similar depths as the construction would be especially vulnerable.…FRA would identify more precisely if supply wells would be at similar depths as proposed tunnel and underground stations. The Project Sponsor will need to provide effective groundwater control through construction techniques such as either pumping the groundwater out to control flow and pressure or using barriers to keep the groundwater out of tunneling operations. The construction contractor would need to comply with USEPA’s dewatering requirements, as well as state requirements for treatment and metering of pumped groundwater…. The Project Sponsor will develop a Waste Management Plan and/or Spill Prevention Plan that addresses measures to avoid and minimize, and mitigate if necessary, the threat of contamination”.
Commentary-24: Considering that the DEIS is provided to the general public to comment, not enough information is provided about how the specific alignments were narrowed down to J and J1 in light of these groundwater considerations. This is because the DEIS does not provide a solution but puts the responsibility to the Project Sponsor. If the responsibility was going to be put on the Project Sponsor, such approach could have been taken for all of the alignments and is not a unique factor to narrow down any of the alignment options. As discussed in the commentary 21, it is not clear why at this stage, FRA did not consider choosing alignment locations where the groundwater could substantially be much deeper, which might make the proposed narrowed down alignment options unique compared to the other previously evaluated alignments.
IIIb-4. Bedrock
Figure 17 shows that the proposed tunnel that will be constructed within zones of soil strata (not bedrock). The DEIS provides the following information to present the depths to bedrock (herein referred as Figure 19).
46
Figure 19. Bedrock information provided in DEIS (insert from Appendix G13, Figure 3)
Commentary-25: No design information or specific technical discussions could be found in the DEIS as to why a decision was made to construct the tunnel within soil strata as opposed to the bedrock. FRA should provide information to support this decision. For example, if it would be faster, cheaper, or easier, to tunnel within the soil strata instead of bedrock, this should be discussed in the DEIS. When the information from Figure 19 is
47
compared against the proposed alignments closely, it can be seen that the proposed alignments are located in an area where the bedrock is deep in the ground.
Approximate locations of the City and BARC
According to Figure 19, the depth to bedrock along the alignment could be as much as approximately 150 m (490 ft) from the ground surface.
(Close-up of Figure 19)
This means either the alignment has been purposely selected in this region to avoid bedrock or this specific consideration has not been evaluated when selecting the proposed guideway alignment for the tunnels. In either case, such discussion has not
48
been provided in the DEIS, therefore it is not clear how the alignment and the depth of the tunnels have been selected based on the geotechnical / geological engineering perspectives.
IIIc. Extent of Instrumentation Plan
This section is written to outline what is stated in the DEIS as it relates to the instrumentation plan. This term is used in this report to refer to the instruments that would be used to monitor displacements that may occur on the surface and within the tunnel structure. Such information has been included in this review because the proposed instrumentation plan is presented in the DEIS as part of the mitigation measures as it relates to geological and geotechnical complexities. The paragraph below is what the DEIS says about an instrumentation program.
The DEIS states that, “A surface settlement monitoring program will be implemented during construction and tunneling operations. A pre-construction survey of sensitive structures for existing cracks and damages will be conducted. Tolerance levels are established based on thresholds for buildings, roads, and other sensitive structures to ensure no damage. This includes an Alert Notification System that notifies the responsible personnel when tolerances are exceeded. Instrumentation will likely include Borehole Extensometers, Inclinometers, Tunneling Diameter Measure Device, Structure Monitoring Points, Ground Monitoring points, Utility Monitoring Points, Grid Crack Gauges, Tiltmeters, and Survey Instruments.”
Commentary-26: The DEIS has appropriate generic information for this level of review when it comes to the monitoring program but just because monitoring will be conducted does not justify the suitability of the proposed alignments as no local, site- specific geology appears to have been incorporated for decision making at this stage. Especially because Appendix D.10 of the DEIS has the following statement: "Vibration control measures for the SCMAGLEV Project would require further research and investigation to find a suitable solution. Based on the limited information available on the use of maglev or SCMAGLEV train service around the world, experience with source- specific vibration control measures is very limited." This sentence acknowledges the need for further investigation. Therefore, it is not clear how the geotechnical and geological conditions were evaluated for all of the alternatives. As outlined in Commentary 4, the DEIS states that the proposed J and J1 alternatives are better options in terms of mitigation and avoiding problems. Evidence for such statements could not be located in DEIS.
49
IIId. Extent of Foundation Information for Viaducts
This section is written to discuss the geotechnical information provided as it relates to the drilled shafts associated with viaduct peer foundations.
In Appendix G13 it is stated that “Drilling for piles must penetrate the dense to very dense soils. The holes will be subject to caving and deviation unless proper precautions are undertaken. Instability of drilled holes for piles will occur when holes encounter granular soils containing sand, gravel, cobbles and/or boulders both above and below the water table. Deflection of the drilling tool when it encounters obstructions in fill (up to 1 m (3 ft) in size), cobbles and boulders will cause deviations of holes. A coring bit should be available to drill through materials that will deflect the drill tool.”
Commentary-27: It is not clear whether the above cited information regarding the presence of large boulders is based on a possibility that is expected based on the local geology of the project site or whether it has been mentioned as a generic information totally independent from this site. Section 3.3 of Appendix G13 of the DEIS, does mention the presence of the boulders right above the bedrock. However, the anticipated bedrock depth around BARC as shown in the longitudinal sections from the DEIS, appear to be approximately 80 m (260 ft) from the ground surface (Figure 17). Both the tunnel depth and length of the drilled shafts appear to be above the anticipated bedrock. Therefore, if there is the possibility of large boulders, wouldn’t their presence create also major obstacles for the TBMs and potentially cause severe distortion of the clay and sand layers during the tunneling through these boulders? If this is the case, it is possible that the evaluation of the alignment may also have to be reconsidered. However such discussions could not be found in the DEIS.
The DEIS also states that for the foundations of the viaducts “Different sizes of drilled shafts between 1.2 m (4 ft) and 3 m (10 ft) diameter were evaluated.” In Appendix E of the Appendix G13, load settlement curves for three different shaft diameters, at 4, 5 and 6 ft are given. Also the skin resistance of the strata have been provided for each diameter up to a depth of 50 m (150 ft).
Commentary-28: It is not clear from the DEIS, whether the provided drilled shaft data is from the specific site conditions for this project where the drilled shafts will be installed or whether the load - settlement curves are given as examples from another project. Such information should be clarified especially because in the DEIS, it is stated that instability of drilled holes for piles may occur when holes encounter granular soils containing sand, gravel, cobbles and/or boulders both above and below the water table.
50
IV. INFORMATION GATHERED FROM LITERATURE
IVa. Geology within the City and BARC
Figure 20 has been created for this review based on the publicly available information (http://www.mgs.md.gov/maps/PGGEO2003_2_S83.pdf) to show the possible geology within the limits of the City and BARC as it relates to the proposed guideway alignments and TMF / MOW facilities.
Within the limits of the City and BARC, three formations can be identified as depicted by the following symbols: • Kps: Sand and gravel facies within Potomac group • Kpc: Silty clay facies within Potomac group • Qt: Terrace deposits
Section 3 of the Appendix G13 of the DEIS defines these geological units. Specific description by the Maryland DNR are repeated herein.
51
Figure 20. Geology of the region as determined by Maryland DNR over the limits of the City and BARC
52
The DIES outlines the literature but several direct comments from Maryland Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) have importance: • For the Kps, MDNR points out that “as is typical of fluvial sediments, few beds are laterally continuous for any great distance; consequently, great variability in outcrop lithology is the rule”. • For the Kpc, MDNR points out that “much of the clay is internally massive and weathers hackly (this term typically refers to fractures with sharp boundaries). Plant fossils and dinosaur bones and teeth have been found in Potomac silt-clay”. Additionally both the MDNR and the DEIS point out about the lignitic clays. Lignite is a naturally occurring composed peat. Therefore, generally these layers appear as soft and containing weakness planes.
In the DEIS, section 4.13.3, the following statement exists: “Given the SCMAGLEV Project’s location within the Potomac Group sediments, there is the possibility for prehistoric animal and plant fossils to be present in the subsurface, specifically within the Patuxent Formation and Arundel Clay, however fossils are expected to be especially scarce in Washington, D.C. and parts of Prince George’s County, where the Arundel Clay is thinner and discontinuous.”
Commentary-29: Such statement confirms that the team evaluating the alignments is aware of the potential of running into fossiliferous layers, however a detailed discussion of if in fact such layers are encountered, what would be the impact on the tunnel boring operations could not be found in the DEIS.
In the content of the proposed project, both the Kps and Kpc units could potentially be problematic as the variability in the strata may create challenges with the TBM operations, having fossils present could potentially result in sections where, due to acidic groundwater, part of the fossiliferous areas might have dissolved and left cavities in the ground, lignitic clays could be a source of concern for major settlement and slip zones. Additionally, potential problems associated with tunneling through these layers have been identified in sections 6.5 and 6.6 of Appendix G13 as it relates to soil stickiness and soil abrasion.
Commentary-30: Despite the discussions related to the soil properties mentioned above, no geological / geotechnical discussions have been provided in the DEIS to explain why in light of the presence of potentially major problematic zones, the tunnel alignment has been designed to go through the soil strata as opposed to the bedrock and how the depths of the tunnel along the alignments have been determined.
In addition to the MDNR’s geological map, in 1988, the area within the boundaries of the City and BARC has been part of the map that shows the landslide susceptibility in Maryland (http://www.mgs.md.gov/geology/geohazards/marlboro_clay.html). Below is the part of this map showing the area of interest (Figure 21).
53
Figure 21. Insert cropped from MDNR’s map of landslide susceptibility in Maryland.
The area of interest is within the zone that is designated as 1 – 4. According to MDNR’s geological map, sediments that lie within this zone belong to Potomac group and are very low to severely susceptible to landslides. Such information raises concerns associated with large fill within the areas designated for TMF and MOW and foundations for the viaducts.
In section 4.13 of the DEIS, it is stated that “FRA has identified much of the SCMAGLEV Project within a “High Landslide Incidence Area,” which means that over 15 percent of the area is prone to land sliding. Within the SCMAGLEV Project Affected Environment, the clay layers of the Arundel Formation (from deposits of the Potomac Group), as previously described in Section 4.10.3.3, act as the confining unit between aquifers, and are known to cause stability issues and create a landslide risk.” The DEIS further states that “The BARC Airstrip, BARC West, and MD 198 TMFs have the potential to encounter landslide prone soils and acid producing soils”.
Commentary-31: Although it is acknowledged in DEIS, it appears that such geological concern has not been taken into account during the selection of the locations for TMF alternatives in BARC as the proposed layout has high levels of fill. Even though DEIS acknowledges the common knowledge of potential major slope instabilities in the area,
54
evaluation of slope stability analyses have not been presented, which would have at least provided a quick check of the suitability of the BARC TMF and MOW layouts.
IVb. Seismic Activity within the Region
This section is written to emphasize the recent studies related to the seismic activity of the area and to point out such activities do exist and may effect a wide region.
The text associated in the DEIS as it relates to the seismic activity reads as:
“Based on a review of 2018 United States Geological Survey (USGS) National Seismic Hazard Maps (Peterson et al., 2018) and Earthquake Hazard Maps for Maryland (Reger, 1999), the study area is located in an area of the United States with a low probability of seismic activity. The USGS identifies the eastern United States as a “Stable Continental Region” (SCR) because of its location in the center of a tectonic plate. Based on this geologic setting, the potential for seismic hazards has been deemed as low.
Maryland has experienced a number of earthquakes since 1990, all with magnitudes <3.0 which classify as minor (Maryland Geological Survey, 2010). This does not include earthquake epicenters located in surrounding states, which achieve magnitudes up to 5.8 (2011 Mineral, VA earthquake). The latest recorded earthquake in Maryland was recorded on November 11, 2017 and was classified as magnitude 1.5 (Intensity I).”
Commentary-32: The DEIS briefly mentions the 2011 Virginia earthquake but underestimates the risk it is posing by stating that this earthquake took place not in Maryland but in a surrounding state. The fact that there was an earthquake of magnitude 5.8 in the near vicinity should be an important fact FRA should consider for the current project.
The risks associated with earthquakes in this region can be summarized based on the following: • Although the epicenter of the 2011 Virginia earthquake was 100 miles from the Washington D.C., several buildings including the Washington monument and the National cathedral were severely shaken by this earthquake. Considering that Greenbelt is only about 20 miles from the D.C. area, this earthquake is much closer to the project site than anticipated in the DEIS. Detailed discussion of how potentially such an earthquake could impact the SCMAGLEV system during and after construction should not be dismissed or neglected in the DIES. • The tectonic system which created the 2011 Virginia earthquake extends into the region where the SCMAGLEV system is proposed. This is because the tectonic regime in the eastern U.S. involves compression of the Atlantic Coast region presumably due to ridge-push from the Mid-Atlantic Ridge, and/or the formation of the Appalachian Mountains.
55
Figure 22 is an insert taken from the National Science Foundation’s (NSF) GEER-026 report describing the affected areas in terms of the earthquake intensity map. As can be seen from Figure 22, the region between Washington D.C. and Baltimore is equally effected as the Richmond region. The NSF report describes the affected areas as “the earthquake disrupted rail lines and caused extensive traffic delays as far away as New York City. Minor damages were reported as far away as New Jersey and New York more than 450 km (280 miles) to the northeast, and as far as Charleston, South Carolina, which is 600 km (370 miles) to the southwest.”
Figure 22. Intensity map showing affected region of the 2011 Virginia Earthquake
56
Another critical issue related to earthquakes is that the current guideway alignment passes through soil layers. In the presence of earthquake, the soil layers could possibly amplify the earthquake waves coming from the bedrock. From the soil amplification perspective, the alignment appears to be in an unfavorable location. As can be read in the literature, high frequency surface waves generated at the basin edge are of great interest in the field of engineering seismology. The Northridge earthquake (1994) and Kobe earthquake (1995) are the recent reminders that soft sediments and basin edge have significant effects on surface wave generation and ground motion amplification (Narayan, 2005). In the case of a possible earthquake, a similar ground motion amplification may also be expected in the project site considering that no site-specific information regarding the stiffness of the ground has been provided in DEIS based on in-situ or laboratory results. One of the reasons for such possibility is the presence of the bedrock underneath the proposed tunnel alignment. As can be seen from the bedrock map provided in Appendix G13 section 3.3 of DEIS (herein inserted as Figure 19), there is bedrock underneath the soil strata and the elevation of the bedrock is shallower towards the west. Therefore, with the appropriate seismic activity, there is a chance for the seismic waves to reflect from the bedrock and coincide with the seismic waves approaching from the soil strata and increase the magnitude of the damage significantly.
A proof of the validity of soil amplification risk was observed during the August 2011 Virginia earthquake. As stated by the 2011 NSF GEER Renaissance report “Toward the east in the Richmond area, minor damages occurred to unreinforced masonry structures especially in the form of broken chimneys. To the northeast in Washington, DC, southern Maryland and Delaware, more than 130 km (80 miles) away, there was a marked uptick in damages relative to other locations closer to the epicenter. This was especially apparent for sites on Coastal Plain sediments overlying hard rock. Damages, some of which were quite significant, occurred to a variety of structures, including buildings, bridges, and monuments and institutions.”
Commentary-33: Based on what has been observed in 2011, a severe soil amplification in the Coastal Plain sediments is a realistic risk but details associated with such concerns could not be found in the DEIS. As an opinion, it is believed that facts associated with the risk of earthquakes must be analyzed with a site-specific earthquake study. This study (at a minimum) should consider the local geology both in terms of the potential to create earthquakes and also the potential to amplify the earthquake waves. Without considering these risks, narrowing down on an alignment and then expecting the designers to solve such problems may not be the best choice. As an opinion, it is believed that the secret of a good (safe) design starts with choosing an optimum alignment (both horizontal and vertical alignments), where these risks are minimized. The provided information in the DEIS does not appear to address these concerns and it is not clear how the proposed alignments were considered from these geological / geotechnical perspectives.
57
IVc. Mining Activity within the Region
This section is written to specifically overlay the available information from the literature as it relates to the historical mining activities within the alignment and TMF/MOW facilities within BARC. In this section, potential consequences of missing some of this information has also been discussed with examples from other tunneling projects.
Section 4.13 of the DEIS has the following insert regarding the mining activities within the proposed project site (underline is added for the purpose of this review):
“Mines - Nine mining locations, identified as “past producers” are present within 300 feet of the SCMAGLEV Project LOD. The locations listed are locations where sand, gravel, and iron ore have historically been mined, including six iron ore and three sand/gravel mines. One mine located near the tunnel laydown area for the Camden Station also mined heavy metals. These mines are currently inactive, and the potential for modern mining of resources in these areas is limited due to land development and economic feasibility. Because details such as the extent and type of backfill at the former open quarries and the extent of mine reclamation activities is not available, additional coordination with state sources is necessary. Although sand and gravel mines in this area are typically mined from the surface, the type of iron ore mine can vary depending on the type of iron being mined. The acquisition and reclamation of abandoned mines may require coordination under the Maryland SMCRA.”
MDNR has a map that outlines the historic mines within Prince George’s County. The overlay of this information along the guideway and TMF options is created for the purpose of this review and presented as Figure 23.
Based on what is outlined by MDNR, there are several former iron ore operations in the vicinity of the TMF Option 1 (BARC west) along with abandoned or inactive sand and gravel, clay, sand ocher or marl operation. Similarly large operations of abandoned or inactive sand and gravel, clay, sand ocher or marl operation (and some has been reclaimed) exists along the J and J1 alignments.
The MDNR map describes the iron ore operations as:
58
Figure 23. Overlay of historic mining along the vicinity of the TMF and alignments.
59
Descriptions of the symbols are provided below:
Important aspect of the iron ore operation description by MDNR is the statement indicating that the mining was done by open pit, gouging, and tunneling. However, based on the information provided in the DEIS, it does not appear that when selecting the tunnel alignment and TMF location, such evaluation has been conducted to confirm the method of the historic iron mining used at that location.
Commentary-34: The presence of old mines increase the risk of the presence of abandoned galleys, shafts etc. which are not known. As the tunnel construction advances, it may disturb the stability of such cavities and cause collapse of these cavities. Similarly due to the loads applied by the fill to construct the TMF and MOW facilities the possibility of a collapse in the ground may exist. Additionally, if these abandoned mines were filled, the type of fill could also cause sources of concern for differential settlements. Such concerns do not appear to be included in detail in the DEIS when selecting the location of the TMF.
Bilgin et al. (2016) reports that in a recent TBM tunneling project, ancient water wells created a significant risk for surface collapses. Surface collapse, which occurred along the Yenikapi and Mahmutbey–Mecidiyekoy metro lines in Istanbul/Turkey is a typical example of such concerns. Figure 24 is an example of the consequence of such a collapse on a building. The magnitude of the sinkhole can better be understood by the car, which was parked on the street, falling into the sinkhole. It is also reported for the same project that a severe surface collapse occurred during the Istanbul metro tunnel construction resulting the death of five people living in a hostel.
60
Figure 24. Surface collapse in Istanbul-Turkey tunnel in 2015 (from Bilgin et al., 2016).
Commentary-35: Although the MDNR map is useful to identify that there has been historic mining in this area, it may not mean that all historic mining activities are captured. It is a possibility that some mining activities may have occurred that were not captured by MDNR. If not accurately identified, as the TBM advances, it may disturb the stability of such cavities and cause collapses of these cavities, which may cause damages at the ground surface. And if such ground collapse develops in a residential area under a building or on a busy road, it can have catastrophic consequences. Although the presence of historical mines are recognized in DEIS, details of how mining information was assessed to determine the suitability of different alignments and why the J and J1 alignments provided a better alternative compared to other eliminated alignment options could not be found in DEIS.
IVd. Summary of Previous Relevant Research Related to the Effects of Vibration
This section is written to point out that vibrations within high-speed tunnels are complex and may create pressure waves on the tunnel lining, therefore possibly within the soil surrounding the tunnel.
The DEIS does not go into the details of the vibration and settlement issues. It only states that “Baseline noise and vibration, representing the current conditions, will be documented prior to the start of construction, and tunneling. Vibration limits are set to eliminate the possibility of
61
physical damage to buildings and to eliminate or minimize exposure to the public. A Noise and Vibration Control Plan will be prepared by the contractor prior to the start of work. Monitoring points will be established along the alignment during construction and tunneling operations with daily monitoring. Work will not continue where noise and vibration levels have been exceeded until acceptable mitigation measures are deployed.”
The information provided in the DEIS related to vibration is limited. As presented in Table D.10- 7 of the DEIS, FRA predicted vibration impact counts from train operations to be for the J alignment, as 359 and for J1 alignment as 340. The DIES does not indicate clearly whether these numbers apply to the elevated viaduct or tunnel portion of the alignments, or both. Figure D.10-6 (Baseline Noise Monitoring Results) from Appendix D is provided in DEIS to show the impacted locations along the tunnel even though the impact listed in Table D.10-7 is stated in the DEIS as to be valid for both the tunnel and viaduct. However, in section D.10.4.2.3, it is stated that “Most ground-borne vibration impacts are along tunnel sections of the alignment”. The DEIS also has the following statements as listed below.
For short-term construction effects; “FRA predicted maximum construction vibration levels that range from 0.012 in/sec PPV for FA/EE facilities excavation up to 0.121 in/sec for viaduct construction. Based on this preliminary assessment of potential vibration damage, FRA predicted no exceedances of FRA Category I damage threshold (0.5 in/sec for typical timber structures) or the Category II damage threshold (0.5 in/sec for masonry buildings) for any of the Build Alternatives.”
For long-term effects; the DEIS does not provide such PPV information but only states: “Vibration control measures for the SCMAGLEV Project would require further research and investigation to find a suitable solution. Based on the limited information available on the use of maglev or SCMAGLEV train service around the world, experience with source-specific vibration control measures is very limited. Applying first-order principles and experience gained from using successful control measures for other concrete- constructed systems has resulted in successful mitigation of vibration impacts.”
Commentary-36: The DEIS provides no details of how the impact study was conducted for the long-term effects. For the short-term, during construction it is stated in DEIS that “FRA used the peak particle velocity (PPV) vibration level to assess the potential for damage at residences and other sensitive receptors using the FTA vibration criteria”. Considering that FRA acknowledges that future research and investigation is necessary for the long-term effects, it is not clear how the J and J1 alignments were narrowed down based on these aspects and why the tunnel alignment is considered to be in the soil and not within the bedrock. Although not clear, it is possible that the long-term vibrations could not only be due to the movement of the train on the magnets but also do the acoustic waves, which can possibly create vibrations inside the tunnel. Such aerodynamic vibrations could occur in the tunnel because of limited air volume of the tunnel and the high speed of the train. DEIS does not address these concerns as well as how such vibrations may affect the safety of the structures at the ground surface.
62
However, if these issues are not discussed and predicted during the decisions to choose an alignment, it could be too late to address them after the construction has been completed.
A peer-reviewed research article written by Niu et al. in 2020 focuses on aerodynamics of railway train/tunnel system. Although the article focuses on maglev trains that are primarily running on railways (not on magnetic fields as is the case in SCMAGLEV project), the importance of this research article is that, the research focuses on aerodynamic performance and flow field characteristics of high-speed trains in tunnels. Considering that this article was published very recently in 2020, the provided information is relevant especially because if anything, the SCMAGLEV system is most likely going to have trains running faster than the ones on the maglev rail systems. The following text have been copied from this document:
“When trains pass through or pass by each other in tunnels at high speeds, the vehicle structure and tunnel wall are subjected to strong transient aerodynamic impact pressures, and the pressure amplitude can be up to 6 kPa (0.87 psi).
Even a single train passing through a tunnel causes pressure waves on the train surface, tunnel wall and inside the vehicle. Figure 28 in this journal article (in this review referred as Figure 25) shows among other data, the pressure measured on the train and the tunnel surface.
63
Figure 25. Pressure wave caused by a single train passing through a tunnel (Ni et. al, 2020). The numbers listed in Figure 25 (Figure 28 in Niu et. al, 2020) is explained by the researchers as: “(1) The initial expansion wave caused by the train tail arriving at the measure point on the train surface; (2) The second reflected compression wave caused by the train head reaching the measure point on the train surface; (3) The third reflected expansion wave caused by the train head reaching the measure point on the train surface; (4) The third reflected compression wave caused by train tail reaching the measure point on the train surface; (5) The fifth reflected expansion wave caused by the train head reaching the measure point on the train surface; (6) The measure point on the train surface running out of the tunnel; (7) The initial compression wave arriving at the measure point on the tunnel wall; (8) The initial expansion wave caused by the train tail arriving at the measure point on the tunnel wall; (9) The reflected expansion wave caused by the train head reaching the tunnel wall; (10) The second reflected expansion wave caused by the train tail arriving at the measurement point on the tunnel wall; (11) The third reflected expansion wave by train head arriving at the measurement point on the tunnel wall; (12) The fifth reflected compression wave caused by the train tail reaching the measurement point on the tunnel wall.”
Commentary-37: The significance of this information is, it appears that when there is pressure on the train, there is also pressure on the tunnel liner. That means that there could be frequently applied vibrations on the tunnel liner and hence in the surrounding soil. These vibrations may cause additional porewater pressures in the soil surrounding the tunnel and may cause softening of the clays and loosening of the silts and sands and eventually causing long term settlements on the ground. So if the alignment gets chosen without paying attention to such details, future risks may become inevitable. Additionally, if the engineering soil properties are not known, vibration analysis cannot be conducted. Therefore it is not clear whether or not such details have been taken into account by DEIS when all of the alignments were narrowed down and how such conditions appear to be better in the proposed J and J1 alignments in the DEIS.
The DEIS further discusses the so-called micro-pressure waves at the location where the train leaves the tunnel. “Commonly mentioned measures listed in the literature has been the mitigation measures such as flared tunnel portals similar to trumpets; perforated portal hoods to reduce aerodynamic effects, installing specially designed noise mitigation hoods etc.”.
Niu et. al (2020) describe the micro-pressure wave at the exit of the tunnel as:
“When pressure waves in tunnels reach the tunnel exit, one part of the compression wave is reflected back to the tunnel as an expansion wave or expansive wave, and the other part forms an impulse noise to scatter out of the tunnel, which is usually called a micro-pressure wave. The intensity of the impulse noise caused by the initial compression wave is the largest. The strength of the micro-pressure wave increases with train speed; the influence of speed on the micro-pressure wave is not obvious when the train speed is not high enough. But with the increasing speed, the effect of the micro-pressure wave began to be significant; it was first discovered in the full-scale online test of the 300 series Shinkansen train in the 1960s. Research
64
has allowed to reduce this by constructing oblique tunnel portals, particularly the hat oblique tunnel portal combined with a buffer structure with top holes.”
Commentary-38: The portal design components mentioned in the DEIS may scatter the impulse noise created by the micro-pressure wave coming out of the tunnel, but the DEIS does not discuss whether these will also be useful for the compression wave reflected back to the tunnel as an expansion wave and creating additional vibrations in the tunnel and surrounding soil.
Appendix D-10 states that “Vibration control measures for the SCMAGLEV Project would require further research and investigation to find a suitable solution. Based on the limited information available on the use of maglev or SCMAGLEV train service around the world, experience with source-specific vibration control measures is very limited. Applying first-order principles and experience gained from using successful control measures for other concrete-constructed systems has resulted in successful mitigation of vibration impacts. Typical vibration mitigation would include resilient control such as: • Resilient track beds and resiliently supported viaducts would de-couple the track structure from the surrounding support system and thereby ‘break’ the vibration path between the track and the nearby vibration-sensitive receptors. These resilient materials and devices (typically used for buildings in earthquake zones) are those that can recoil or “spring-back” into shape after being compressed. These can come in many forms, including support pads, springs or other resilient material suitable for the structures proposed on this SCMAGLEV Project. • Similar to floating slabs for conventional track systems, a resiliently supported track bed that accommodates the SCMAGLEV electrical and magnetic propulsion and guidance systems would reduce the impact energy caused by the high-speed SCMAGLEV train passing by.”
Commentary-39: As stated in the DEIS, limited information is available in the world on the use of SCMAGLEV train service and it appears that DEIS does not discuss the effects of the vibrations that can potentially develop within the tunnel (not just the exit of the tunnel) as discussed in the article by Niu et. al (2020) and how these vibrations may affect the behavior of the surrounding soil. Considering that the surrounding soils will either be sand or clay (although the DEIS claims these layers to be dense and stiff, no such evidence has been provided), these vibrations may increase the porewater pressure, which may reduce the effective stresses, which may have severe adverse effects on the stability of the ground and consequences for the infrastructure on the ground surface. It is not clear whether such analyses that consider such probabilities and consequences have been conducted and why the alignment of the tunnel is chosen to go through soil and not within bedrock.
65
IVe. Summary of Tunneling Operations Provided in DEIS and Comparison with Literature
This section is written to focus on the tunnel boring methods that were referred in the DEIS and the thoughts as it relates to the advantages and disadvantages of these methods.
Appendix G13 of the DEIS describe the general construction considerations for tunnels and provides two alternative tunnel boring machine (TBM) techniques.
For the earth pressure balance (EPB) the DEIS states that “In North America, EPB TBMs are the most common and have been used successfully in the project area. EPB TBMs are well suited for boring in soft ground, as expected with most drives on this project. They can also mine through variable soils and groundwater. The excavation method for an EPB TBM is based on tunnel face support provided by the excavated soil itself.”
The DEIS also briefly describes the slurry-face TBMS as “Slurry-face TBMS are typically used for tunneling in heterogeneous geologies and high-water pressure zones, where the addition of the slurry and the closed spoil removal system provides more precise pressure control of the facing pressure (underline added by the author). Slurry-face TBMs add bentonite (clay) slurry in a pressurized environment at the tunnel excavation face. This combination of pressure and slurry stabilizes and supports the soils during excavation. Depending on the ground encountered, conditioners may be added to the slurry. Slurry-face TBM tunneling, uses bentonite slurry to apply fluid (hydraulic) pressure to the tunnel face and transport soil cuttings from the tunneling machine’s pressure chamber to the surface. The slurry mixed with soil cuttings is processed to separate the soil from the slurry. Separated soil is disposed of at approved locations selected by the tunnel contractor(s), and the cleaned bentonite slurry is returned to the machine’s cutting chamber. The slurry is mixed at a surface plant and therefore involves the setup of one or more temporary slurry treatment plants. The slurry plant is anticipated to require an approximately 1- acre site for the equipment and enclosure.”
The DEIS furthermore states that “A detailed understanding of the local geology and potential high water pressure zones will be identified during the next phase of the ground investigation program.”
Commentary-40: Considering that one of the purposes of the released DEIS is to allow the public to comment about the alignment and how this alignment may affect their lives, based on the generic information provided above, without having the proper detailed understanding of the local geology and potential high water pressure zones it is not possible to comment on the risks involved with the proposed tunnel boring methods.
The importance of the choice of a proper tunnel alignment on the existing structures on the surface and how the proper choice of the alignment depends on the proper knowledge of the
66
topography and geology are well demonstrated in the peer reviewed scientific article by Babendererde and Elsner (2014). The article states that “At the moment EPB machines are being used far more often than Slurry machines. However, especially with regard to settlement control the advantages of the Slurry TBMs shall be pointed out. The control of the face support pressure level in a Slurry TBM is much easier and much more precise than in an EPB TBM. The only possible disadvantage might be an increased penetration depth of the slurry into the ground, which will increase the demand for the compensation of slurry losses a little.” Furthermore, especially with large diameter tunnels and close to the surface, frac-out can be a risk, in terms of harming the structures above and polluting the environment. Babendererde and Elsner (2014) further states that “Because the working chamber of an EPB TBM in theory is always full with muck it is a common believe that EPB TBMs have a lower risk for a cave-in than Slurry TBMs. But to the experience of the authors this is not the case. One reason for this is that conditioning with foam, the most common conditioning agent, brings many air-filled voids in to working chamber. A TBM operation with a foam injection ratio (FIR) of 50% injects 1 m3 of foam for every 2 m3 of soil excavated. Thus from the material inside the working chamber 33% is foam which to the major part, between 90% to 95%, consists of air. Especially during standstills there is the risk that the air dissipates into the ground, leaving huge voids in the working chamber. During the restart of the excavation these voids can lead to cave-ins and over excavation. Another practical reason for cave-ins into EPB TBMs is that often the soil, in which EPB TBMs are being used, is partly self-stable due to minimum cohesion. Despite the above- mentioned effects, it is undisputed that EPB TBMs behave well on many projects. When talking about the choice of the TBM is also has to be taken into account that there are many projects where there is no real choice between a Slurry or an EPB TBM because the predominant geology clearly favors one system over the other. However, there are also cases of mixed geology and if then settlement control becomes critical and a flexible face pressure management might be desirable, the more precise pressure regulation in a Slurry TBM should definitely be considered. Finally, a client with a project in a sensible area, most likely an inner city, might consider paying more money for his project for safety reasons by choosing a Slurry TBM, even if for example the clay and fine silt content in the project soil would suggest the use of an EPB system.”
Another research article by Liu et al. (2009) states that “With the increase of the shield tunnel diameter, the probability of excavation in complicated stratum with different types of soil layers increases greatly. The stability of the soil itself decreases at the same time. The pressure to be applied by the shield must avoid both the collapse (active failure) and the blow-out (passive failure) of the soil mass near the tunnel face. Since the density of the slurry should remain within a certain range to obtain high-quality filter cakes, and it is always smaller than the density of soil, there will be a pressure difference between the slurry pressure and the earth pressure at tunnel crown and invert. This pressure difference increases with the tunnel diameter increase. This pressure difference may induce a different failure mechanism from the one corresponding to a constant slurry pressure, especially in large tunnels.”
Commentary-41: Based on the above cited information, the method of construction depends heavily on the local geological and geotechnical properties. Therefore while
67
choosing the alignment, this information must be available. Based on the geotechnical properties of the local stratification, proper depth of tunnel, most optimum tunnel diameter (based on impact and not cost), best tunneling method and as a consequence best alignment must be determined. Considering that making adjustments on the alignment is the best method to avoid risks, the preliminary investigation should have been conducted for all of the proposed alignment alternatives and provide sufficient information to allow educated decisions regarding construction details (such as tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, transition location between tunnel and viaduct etc.).
FRA should not first choose an alignment without providing such comparison between the different alignment alternatives and then refer to future studies to wait for detailed information. Before the decisions are made, the preliminary investigation should be sufficient to be able to compare and contrast all alternatives based on geology / geotechnical information. Therefore, in the current DEIS it appears that the alignments J and J1 have been chosen without sufficient geological / geotechnical comparisons to other alternatives. This is because no site-specific subsurface stratification and water level information have been provided for any other eliminated alternatives. Furthermore, no engineering property evaluation have been provided even for the proposed J and J1 alignments. In the DEIS, when referred to geological sections, the soil strata is primarily referred as dense and stiff (although no information to back-up this assessment has been provided in the DEIS) and in the section where the TBM is discussed, the most suitable soil strata for the EPB TBM is referred as soft ground. These types of discrepancies should have already been eliminated and specific conditions be identified at this level to be able to properly assess the suitability of the proposed alignment and the types of equipment that will be used for the tunnel.
The risk a tunnel creates for the buildings on the surface is also related to the thickness of soil cover and with reduced soil cover above the tunnel, the risk to the ground surface may increase. Therefore understanding the local geology at the zone where the tunnel transfers to the cut and cover section and eventually to the tunnel portal is of uttermost importance. Considering that there is not a single site investigation borehole conducted in this zone within the City and BARC limits, it is not possible to understand what the risks are and how the specific location for this transition was selected.
Commentary-42: No discussion has been given in the DEIS on what the porewater pressure at this particular site is expected to be and how it may influence the pressure that must be applied by the EPB or slurry shield TBMs and whether an increase in porewater pressure may have an effect on the foundations of the structures which appear to be resting on over-consolidated soil within the City.
From the bedrock topography provided in the DEIS (Appendix G13, Figure 3), it can be seen that with a slight change in horizontal alignment the tunnel could pass through bedrock eliminating
68
or significantly minimizing major risks of surface settlements. No information in the DEIS could be found why such alternative has not been evaluated based on geology and geotechnical analyses.
It is most likely that frac-out risk could be higher in slurry pressure method, compared to EPB method. The risk further increases with increasing tunnel diameter. With a more detailed analysis, it may be possible to slightly change even the current alignment to assure that the tunnel remains within strata, where EPB method can be applied more easily.
Commentary-43: In order to choose the most optimum alignment even within the considered corridor, the geological study cannot just be limited to understand the geological features specifically along the J and J1 alignments, instead a wider zone between the DC and Baltimore must have been investigated for this purpose. If such activities have occurred, the information that the DEIS has gathered should have been available to the public.
IVf. Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Tunnels for Trains Constructed Through Soil Strata
This section is written to highlight the potential long-term effects of tunneling through soil layers as it relates to settlement and deformation -related groundwater infiltration.
A peer reviewed study by Shen et al. (2014) highlights the settlement problem of tunnels constructed below the groundwater table and in soils. Although the study was not conducted at the specific locations between the D.C. and Baltimore, the importance of this study is that it has evaluated the conditions that may occur through soil strata. Compared to the SCMAGLEV project referred in the DEIS, the diameter of the tunnels evaluated by Shen et al. (2014) is about half of the diameter of the tunnels in this project, meaning if anything, along the SCMAGLEV project the conditions associated with the tunnel diameter could be worse. Even though the train system evaluated by Shen et al. (2014) is not a SCMAGLEV system, this study is believed to have importance in terms of possible conditions that may occur through the soil strata. Therefore, it is believed that despite these differences, there are lessons to be learned from the experience gained on Shanghai metro tunnels as reported by Shen et al. (2014).
The metro tunnels in Shanghai are generally excavated using EPB shield machines through soil layers that are approximately 60 to 70 m (200 to 230 ft) from the ground surface. The subsurface conditions at the Shanghai project are described to include a multi-aquifer–aquitard system, in which clayey and sandy soils overlap. Most of the metro lines consist of tunnels having 6.2 m (20 ft) in outer diameter and 5.5 m (18 ft) in inner diameter. The importance of this study is that it outlines the metro tunnels built in the soil deposits to suffer from settlement and deformation-related groundwater infiltrations.
69
Shanghai Metro Line No. 1 was constructed in 1995. The measured results of cumulative settlement are shown by Shen et al. (2014) as depicted in this review in Figure 26.
Figure 26. Long-term settlement of the Shanghai Metro Line No. 1 (by Shen et al. (2014)
As can be seen from Figure 26, there has been continuous settlement since the initiation of the project in 1995. At the end of 2010, the average cumulative settlement reached 111 mm (4.3 inch). Differential settlement was found in the longitudinal direction, with the maximum being 295 mm (11.6 inch, close to 1 ft). One foot of settlement is typically considered excessive but settlement is a serviceability issue in most cases and therefore, the margin of settlement that is acceptable is site and project specific.
Shanghai Metro Line No. 2 was constructed in 1999. Figure 27 shows the measured result of cumulative settlement along this line. After being in service for 11 years, the average cumulative settlement reached 57.9 mm (2.3 inch) and the maximum cumulative settlement reached 175 mm (6.9 inch, close to half of a foot).
The results of field measurements in the metro tunnels of Shanghai by Shen et al. (2014) show that differential settlement mainly occurs in the following situations: (a) under variable soil conditions; (b) between station and tunnel transitions; (c) at a cross passage and ramp sections; and (d) at tunnel sections crossing below river. In the context of this review, it should be noted that variable soil conditions and transition zones also occur within the City and BARC.
Shen et al. (2014) makes the following statements “EPB shield tunneling inevitably disturbs the surrounding soils. Field measurements of ground response during and after the construction and measured pore pressures in the ground found that significant excess pore pressure was
70
developed during the shield driving and tail grouting processes. It took 2.5 months for most of the excess pore pressure to be fully dissipated, and associated with it, was considerable consolidation settlement. After that, a secondary consolidation that may contribute up to 10% of the total settlement was observed. The time-dependent consolidation and secondary consolidation of surrounding soil will in turn cause long-term settlement of the tunnels. There are two factors influencing the magnitude of post-construction settlement due to disturbance of tunneling: (i) the soil properties and (ii) the construction details. Generally, in sand and silts, less settlement occurs and the final stable state is reached quickly; whereas in compressible clayey soil more settlement occurs and may take much longer to stabilize.
Figure 27. Long-term settlement of the Shanghai Metro Line No. 2 (by Shen et al. (2014)
Cyclic loads applied by the trains also contribute to the settlement. The operation of trains provides a long-term repetitive, low frequency vibration load on the subsoil of the tunnel. Field measurements on the dynamic response showed that there were two kinds of response frequency when the train ran across the monitoring site, including a higher frequency of 2.4– 2.6 Hz and a lower frequency of 0.4–0.6. The amplitude of soil pressure response is about 1 to 1.2 kPa (0.15 to 0.17 psi) in the subsoil of the tunnel. When subjected to cyclic loading, the clay underlying the tunnel will develop significant cyclic strains and the strength of the clay will be reduced. The cumulative plastic strain of soft subsoil increases rapidly with the number of load applications initially, and then the rate decreases gradually. Therefore, the metro tunnel may suffer settlement that is greater in the first few years and is subsequently less in later years.”
71
Commentary-44: Although the above-described study may not be an exact replicate of what is proposed by the SCMAGLEV project, the study describes that settlements may occur within the soil strata even after construction when the train system through the tunnels are opened for service. Therefore, justification to construct tunnels through soils as opposed to bedrock must be carefully evaluated based on the site specific geological and geotechnical considerations. This is because typically when there is settlement below ground, such settlement also effects the conditions at the ground surface, which may affect the integrity of the buildings and infrastructures hence effecting the safety of the general public. Considering that in the DEIS, the uncertainties and lack of previous observations for the SCMAGLEV system in terms of vibrations are acknowledged, it is not clear how the decision to have the tunnel alignments passing through the soil strata was decided (or justified).
Additionally, it should be determined by FRA whether the areas selected for tunnel transition zones are in areas that have shown settlement issues in the past. Detailed evaluation could not be found in the DEIS presenting that such information has been included into the decision making of selecting alignments and locations with the alignment regarding transition zones. Such information could especially be problematic if the selected transition zones occur nearby structures/buildings with historical settlement problems and utilities near the ground surface.
Shen et al. (2014) study reports the amplitude of soil pressure response due to vibrations as about 1 to 1.2 kPa (0.15 to 0.17 psi) in the subsoil of the tunnel. When these conditions are compared against the study by Niu et al. (2020), as the trains pass through or pass by each other in tunnels at high speeds, the vehicle structure and tunnel wall are subjected to strong transient aerodynamic impact pressures, and the pressure amplitudes can be up to 6 kPa (0.87 psi). Therefore, with the high-speed train systems, it appears that the soil pressure response due to vibrations become even larger.
Commentary-45: When the above presented information is combined with the fact that at the Shen et al. (2014) study the diameter of the tunnels were half of the diameter of the tunnels in the proposed SCMAGLEV project, the conditions could even be more adverse.
IVg. Summary of Previous Relevant Information Regarding Groundwater and Train Tunnels
This section is written to provide examples from other projects where the tunnels were constructed below groundwater and to outline the potential dangers and importance of groundwater for tunneling applications. It is believed that the correct understanding of the groundwater regime is essential in choosing an alignment of a tunnel.
72
A major failure was reported in a study published by Yu et al. (2020) in 2018 during a tunnel construction for the Foshan Metro Line 2 near Guangzhou in southeast China. At the time of the failure, the tunnel was being bored by an EPB type of tunnel boring machine at a ground that was approximately 24 m (80 ft) from the ground surface. The geology of the site consisted of a thick silty soil layer as well as silty clay and fine sand layers. The groundwater at the project site was only 5 m (16 ft) below the ground surface. Tunnel diameter at the site was 6 m (20 ft), therefore the separation between the ground and the top of the tunnel was about 4 times the diameter of the tunnel. The hydrological conditions of the site has been described as complex with both confined and unconfined aquifers. The failure of the tunnel resulted in a ground loss all the way up to the ground surface and covered an approximately 900 m2 (roughly ¼ acres) area causing loss of lives, injuries, and massive damage. Figure 28 shows the extent of the collapsed ground. The cause of the incident has been described by Yu et al. (2020) as “The accident was attributed to a leakage at the tail of the shield machine (part of the tunnel boring machine), which was not sealed well by the brush seals. Brush seals are usually employed to resist the external pressure, which consists of the groundwater pressure, the synchronous grouting pressure, and the pressure caused by the settlement of the soil.”
Figure 28. Photo of the collapsed area during Foshan Metro tunnel
Commentary-46: The case study described by Yu et al. (2020) outlines the potential problems that could be encountered with EPB machines in areas with high groundwater.
73
Also site-specific geology has an impact on the ground conditions and the TBM operations. The study also shows that when a tunnel collapses, even if the separation between the ground surface and the tunnel depth is as much as 80 ft, the consequences of the failure could resonate to the ground surface. The study is provided to point out that groundwater (and associated porewater pressures) are important and potential failures could occur due to these conditions. In relation to the DEIS, such importance become more evident when the separation between the tunnel and the ground surface becomes only one diameter length right underneath a residential area along the J alignment as can be seen within the zone in between Stations 118+200 and 118+400. Such area can be seen from Figures 7 and 8 provided in this review. The residential area at this location is referred as Greenbriar Condominiums. As commented before, detailed analyses of how the alignment and the locations of these transitional areas (such as tunnel portals) were selected in light of all of the geotechnical and geological factors could not be found in DEIS.
Another tunneling problem was reported for the Rastatt Tunnel, which was being in construction for the Karlsruhe–Basel high-speed railway in the Germany. Information of this collapse was reported in https://www.tunneltalk.com/Discussion-Forum-Sep2017-Extra- correspondence-following-Rastatt-TBM-tunnel-collapse.php
The tunnel for this project was described to be running through sandy and gravel soils, mostly under the water table. The tunnel had a diameter of approximately 10 m (30 ft) and the soil above the tunnel was about half of the diameter of tunnel. Due to the complexity of the geological and hydrological conditions (associated with groundwater) not only the tunnel was constructed using a tunnel boring machine (although the type has not been disclosed) but also part of the areas had to be stabilized by freezing the ground with cooling liquid. Even with these precautions, in August 2017, the project had a major incident where the tunnel going through the frozen ground collapsed. The collapse resulted in significant earth movement on the ground surface. Coincidentally the incident occurred right underneath another train railway (Figure 29). As a consequence of the incident the entire rail system between Germany and Switzerland had to be stopped for further investigation. The cause of the problem has not been completely defined in this article; however it appears that geological and hydrological factors along with other environmental conditions played a role in the failure.
74
Figure 29. Rastatt tunnel collapse in Germany
Commentary-46: The case study described in Germany was for a shallower tunneling operation compared to what is being proposed in DEIS and also outlined in the study by Yu et al. (2020). However, the important take away from this study was freezing the ground for stabilization is not an easy task and may not be enough to overcome the problems associated with tunneling in problematic ground (especially below the water table). In the DEIS, there is a section (Appendix G.13, Section 7.3.3, Ground Improvement) where ground freezing is mentioned as one of the potential ground stabilization methods. This case study was presented to outline that although such methods could exist, it appears that site specific / local geology has to be well known in detail before considering these types of applications. Details relating the potential mitigation measures suggested based on site-specific geological information could not be found in DEIS.
75
V. LIST OF MISSING INFORMATION IN THE DEIS TO DETERMINE THE SUITABILITY OF THE SELECTED ALIGNMENTS
The following list is created to summarize what is believed to be missing in DEIS as it relates to geological and geotechnical assessments provided in this review:
• In between the Stations 115+000 and 123+000 (focus of this review), the geological investigation appear to be not sufficient enough considering the importance of such an extensive project: o The number of boreholes around the City and BARC are not sufficient to properly characterize the subsurface conditions within these boundaries. o The depth of the boreholes around the City and BARC are also not sufficient. Some of the boreholes do not even reach to the proposed tunnel elevations and none of the boreholes within this area appears to be deep enough to confirm the type and presence of the bedrock. o Longitudinal geological sections provided in the DEIS within the City ad BARC limits appear to be primarily based on interpretation from other areas and literature as there is not enough subsurface exploration to confirm the presented information. • Laboratory evaluation of the soil samples from the borings are only relevant to identify the type of the soil. No laboratory or in-situ mechanical/engineering property evaluations have been provided related to soils. This means important information such as but not limited to shear strength properties, deformation modulus values, and consolidation properties of the soils are either not declared or not known but reported from literature. This is because there are sections within DEIS that refers to long-term settlement, bearing capacity, and coefficient of subgrade reaction values, that cannot be estimated without engineering properties of soils. • The DEIS refers to the soil layers being dense or stiff. No in-situ or laboratory test results have been provided to confirm such information. This means it is also possible that the soil layers may not be dense or stiff and therefore the risks associated with tunneling is not clear. Such references were either made based on literature or information exists to support these characterizations but they are not provided in the DEIS. • The extent of the impacted areas is not clear. For example in the vicinity of the TMF and MOW facilities, the longitudinal sections show that there will be approximately 12 m (39 ft) (or greater) of fill but the grading of this fill in terms of matching the existing ground elevation has not been depicted clearly. Furthermore, no systematic cross sections (sections that run perpendicular to the longitudinal sections) have been provided in DEIS for TMF and MOW facilities. Therefore, the extent of fill boundaries have not been depicted clearly. If retaining structures are planned at the boundaries of these fill areas (as opposed to creating a slope), there is also no discussion, how these structures will affect the stability of the foundation soils, which may be prone to landslides according to the literature, is unclear.
76
• Considering that making adjustments on the alignment is the best method to avoid risks, the preliminary investigation should have been conducted for all of the proposed alignment alternatives and provide sufficient information to allow educated decisions regarding construction details (such as tunnel depth, tunnel diameter, transition location between tunnel and viaduct etc.). Geology is one of the most important factors in the tunnel construction, therefore it is not clear how the alignment for the guideway was narrowed down to two and almost identical alignments. The DEIS does not address how the alignment has been chosen based on the geological / geotechnical assessments in comparison to other alternatives. This is because no site-specific subsurface stratification and water level information have been provided for any other eliminated alternatives. Furthermore, no engineering property evaluation have been provided even for the proposed J and J1 alignments. The DEIS suggests that risks will be mitigated during design and construction. However, that defeats the purpose of the DEIS because without such information the DEIS does not appear to provide enough evidence to justify the proposed alignments. • The groundwater information also appears to be not site specific, but rather has been obtained and summarized from general reports, which describe the groundwater regime in the area in general sense. The DEIS clearly identifies the potential risks associated with high groundwater conditions but does not appear to discuss how based on these conditions the depths of the tunnels, locations of the tunnel portals, etc. have been chosen for the project. • The DEIS also does not comment on to what degree the porewater pressures may rise during the tunneling operation and how a potential increase in porewater pressure might affect the foundations of the buildings on the surface within the City or the stability of the soil slopes that may be encountered in the BARC area. • Vibration data as it relates to the viaduct and tunnel zones appear to be limited in the DEIS. Based on the literature, it is possible that high-speed trains may create an aerodynamic wave. The related pressure from this wave on the tunnel walls may occur due to the limited air volume within the tunnel. This may affect the soil surrounding the tunnel. No such analysis has been provided in the DEIS. The only issue mentioned related to vibrations is the micro-pressure wave at the tunnel exits. • Another geological parameter that can have an influence on the tunnel and viaducts are the effect of a potential earthquake. For the design of an ordinary structure the earthquake risks mentioned in USGS maps may be considered satisfactory. However, for a project of this magnitude, a site-specific earthquake risk analysis is most likely needed. This is even more important, because the USGS classifies the area as low risk in terms of earthquakes, however recent observations in 2011 indicate the risk of earthquakes in this area. Based on the previous literature, it appears that the selected tunnel alignment could be in a zone that is vulnerable to earthquake acceleration risks. No discussion provided in the DEIS to explain how the proposed alignments were narrowed down to these two specific (which are very close to each other) locations, in terms of these potential earthquake vulnerability.
77
• The DEIS does not justify how the tunnel depths were determined. Selection of these depths may have influence on the suitability of the tunnel boring methods, which may also affect the potential risks associated with (but not limited to) frac-outs. DEIS also does not discuss why some of the tunnel alignment depths were chosen to be through soil strata and not from the bedrock, where some of the risks could potentially be reduced. • Reports prepared by the State of Maryland indicate that there may be abandoned mines and quarries along the alignment. Existence of the abandoned mines also included in the DEIS. However, considering that the locations are based on historical data, the exact locations of these mines may not be accurate. Considering that based on the literature some of these mining activities could have happened underground, it is not clear from the DEIS when proposing the tunnel alignment and BARC west as one of the alternatives if such site-specific evaluations have been considered. • Specific discussions regarding how the potential fossiliferous zones be handled during tunneling to eliminate any impact on the ground surface could not be found. • Geotechnical / geological details regarding how the drilled shaft capacity analyses were performed and in what specific locations along the alignment could not be found.
78
VI. POSSIBLE GEOTECHNICAL IMPACTS IF THE PROJECT PURSUES
VIa. Short-Term Effects (During the 7+ year of Anticipated Construction)
During the construction phase, one of the major risks in this project appears to be related to the tunneling operations. The concerns related to the risks of the chosen tunnel alignment are related to the facts that: 1. most of the tunneling will be constructed through soil layers (sand and clays) as opposed to bedrock and 2. almost all of the tunneling will be conducted under high groundwater level.
The above listed facts increase the risk of the tunneling operations to cause sudden settlements or heave at the ground surface. These risks could potentially occur (but not limited to) due to: a) the thrust of the closed shield of the TBM in front of the constructed tunnel; b) the increased porewater pressure in the ground due to the tunneling operation; c) the dissipation of the porewater pressure build up; d) the grout pressure applied during tunneling behind the permanent liners (for example excessive pressure may cause heave and little pressure may cause settlement); and e) possible change in the groundwater regime during tunneling.
The risk in terms of causing harm to the structures on the ground surface could also be related to the distance between the top of tunnel and the ground surface. This risk increases with decrease in soil cover where the tunnel alignment moves vertically upward underground, where the tunnel merges with the tunnel portal. In this project, it appears that along such location, the soil cover reduces from approximately three tunnel diameter to one tunnel diameter. In such areas the level of risks may potentially increase.
Another risk during construction around the transition zone could be due to the dewatering that may need to be implemented to construct the cut and cover tunnel infrastructures. The dewatering may cause settlements in the nearby roads, utilities, and buildings.
VIb. Long-Term Effects (What Could Happen After the Operation Starts)
As cited literature in this review indicates, a tunnel constructed in soils and below groundwater level may affect the integrity of the existing buildings on the ground surface adversely in the long term. These effects can be summarized as: 1. total settlements and 2. differential settlements.
Settlements may occur due to the factors related to the geological make-up of the soils and/or due to the vibrations created by the trains traveling inside the tunnel.
79
In the areas within BARC, fill areas could be of concern in terms of slope instabilities in the long term if these sections are not designed to withstand the loads associated with constructing the repair and maintenance facilities.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
It is a known fact that construction activities may pose risks. The DEIS clearly (but in very generic sense) identify the potential risks. The DEIS also provides generic information (with some limited supplemental subsurface data) related to geology. However, it is not clear how these two important parts are coupled when narrowing down to the two proposed alignments for this project and how the details as it relates to tunnel portal locations, tunnels within soil strata, etc. are determined without having more detailed site specific local geological and geotechnical information. Furthermore, the potential conditions (for example the existing building structures and their conditions, etc.) do not appear to have been coupled with the geological/geotechnical factors.
80 Attachment A
TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
BURAK F. TANYU
Sid and Reva Dewberry Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering George Mason University, Fairfax VA 22030 Ph: 1-703-993-5621, Fax: 1-703-993-9790, [email protected] Web site: http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
I. EDUCATION AND EXPERIENCE
A. Education
Ph.D. Geological/Geotechnical Engineering Program May 2003 Civil and Environmental Engineering Department University of Wisconsin-Madison
M.S. Earth and Environmental Sciences May 1999 (Formerly known as Geology Department) University of Texas-Arlington
B.S. Geological Engineering December 1996 Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir-Turkey
B. Professional experience
i. Academic
George Mason University, Fairfax, VA 2011 – present Department of Civil, Environmental, and Infrastructure Engineering (CEIE) Associate Professor (tenured), 2017-present Director of Civil and Environmental Engineering Laboratories, 2017-present Assistant Professor (tenure-track), 2011-2017
University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 1999 – 2003 Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
University of Texas, Arlington, TX 1996 – 1999 Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences
ii. Engineering Practice
Geosyntec Consultants, Chicago, IL 2003 – 2011 • Senior Engineer, 2009-2011 • Project Engineer, 2006-2009 • Assistant Project Engineer, 2004-2006 • Senior Staff Engineer, 2003-2004
Tanyu CV-1 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
II. CONTRACTS AND PROJECTS
A. Research Grants
16. Duration: 2019-2021 (Two Years) Project title: Evaluating the Longevity and Condition of the Geotextiles Used in the Past in Geo-Infrastructures Constructed with Recycled Concrete Aggregate
15. Duration: 2018-2021 (Three Years) Project title: Stabilization with Geosynthetics of Foundation Soils in Roadway Systems
14. Duration: 2019-2021 (Two Years) Project title: Suitability of Using Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) As a Backfill in Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Walls Reinforced with Geotextiles
13. Duration: 2018-2024 (Six Years) Project title: Suitability of Using Crushed Hydraulic Cement Concrete (CHCC) Adjacent to Geotextiles in Underdrain Systems Second Phase: Field Trial Before Implementation
12. Duration: 2018-2020 (Two Years) Project title: Existing Condition Assessment, Remaining Service Life Prediction, and Evaluation of Repair Methods
11. Duration: 2018-2019 (One Year) Project title: Evaluating the Contribution of Geotextile to the Performance of the Roadways
10. Duration: 2018-2020 (Two Years) Project title: Developing Quality Control Measures to Use Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Unbound Base Aggregate in Flexible Pavement Systems
9. Duration: 2017-2019 (Two Years) Project title: Evaluating the Potential of Bio-Inspired Soils to Enhance Nature Based Coastal Resiliency Systems by Combining Experimental and Computational Methods
8. Duration: 2016-2019 (Three Years) Project title: Differentiation Between Physical and Chemical Clogging Phenomena: Underdrain Stormwater Systems with Geotextiles Constructed Alongside Recycled Concrete Aggregate
Tanyu CV-2 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
7. Duration: 2016-2017 (One year) Project title: Effect of Temperature Change on the Erosion of Soils
6. Duration: 2015-2019 (Four years) Project title: Developing a Mix Design Methodology to Use Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) in Unbound Base Aggregate in Flexible Pavement Systems
5. Duration: 2014-2018 (Four years) Project title: Defining the Boundary Conditions for Composite Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures
4. Duration: 2013-2017 (Four years) Project title: Evaluation of Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) as an Additive to Base Coarse/Subbase Material in Virginia Department of Transportation Projects
3. Duration: 2014-2016 (Two years) Project title: Use of Recycled Materials as Mechanically Stabilized Earth (MSE) Retaining Wall Reinforced Backfills
2. Duration: 2014 (One year) Project title: Instrumentation Grant for Bridge Abutment Constructed As Part of NCHRP Project
1. Duration: 2014 (One year) Project title: Developing Laboratory Testing Capabilities to Evaluate Resilient Behavior of Soils
B. Geotechnical Engineering and Design Projects
Ash Basin Embankment Seep Investigation, MI 2010-2011 Project manager and principal investigator of a site investigation and slope stability. Wrote the proposal and won the work. Responsibilities include developing a site model, performing investigation to determine the source of the seep within the toe of the embankment, developing a mitigation and slope stability method.
Ash Basin Embankment Construction Oversight, MI 2010 Project manager of a construction project for slope rehabilitation. Wrote the proposal and won the work. The project includes reconstruction of 3,500 ft embankment by changing the side slopes from 2horizontal:1vertical to 2.5horizontal:1vertical. The slopes were reconstructed using off-site clay and included a mid-height drainage layer. Responsibilities included overseeing all of the construction activities including overseeing field personnel, client and contractor management, confirming that the construction is advanced in accordance with design, and
Tanyu CV-3 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home developing engineering solutions for unexpected field conditions. The construction started in June and was successfully completed in the beginning of November.
Ash Basin Embankment Stability, MI 2009-2011 Project manager and principal design engineer of a project on mitigating the surface sloughs observed on approximately 40% of an existing 3.5-mile long ash basin dam that is 40-ft high with 2horizontal:1vertical side slopes. Wrote the proposal and won the work. Manage budget, design and construction efforts, and client relationships. Supervise and mentor a team of junior engineers. Initial responsibilities included inspecting the dam, leading efforts on geotechnical site characterization, developing a Site model, writing assessment report and proposing three conceptual mitigation options. Current responsibilities include leading efforts on designing the selected mitigation option and developing design packages (instrumentation program and performing slope stability, hydrostatic uplift, and stormwater analyses) and construction packages (developing civil layout drawings, specifications, and construction quality assurance plan), and working with permitting agencies (Michigan Department of Natural Environmental Quality, Corps of Engineers, Monroe Drain Commissioner, and Monroe Charter Township). Construction started in summer of 2009 and will continue until 2013.
Site Evaluation Study, MI 2009 Co-project manager and principal investigator of a project on developing and evaluating alternatives for a future residual waste landfill foundation. Identified alternatives included a 300- acre farmed wetland and 400-acre 45-ft deep existing fly ash impoundment, with 30% ash-slurry and 70% ash fill. Wrote proposal, co-managed budget and client relationships, supervised and mentored team of junior engineers.
Sheet Pile Earth Retention System Design, IL 2009 Co-project manager and design engineer of a project on designing a 25 ft deep two-tier anchored sheet pile temporary excavation support system for major school project in downtown Chicago. Wrote the proposal and won the work. Responsibilities included co-managing budget, supervising and mentoring team of junior engineers, and client relationships. In addition, performed site characterization, design calculations, and developed construction and permit drawings.
Landslide Mitigation, PA 2008-2011 Task manager and design engineer of a project on mitigating a landslide that moved 500,000 cy of soil (largest landslide in PA over 40 years). Responsibilities include managing budget for tasks, supervising and mentoring team of junior engineers. In addition, perform detailed slope stability and back analyses to evaluate shear strength of displaced and undisplaced colluvial materials, constructability assessments for interim construction stages of the proposed remedial design, provide litigation support for cause report, develop mitigation options (i.e., slope unloading, regrading, dewatering, and two reinforced soil structures), and oversee part of the construction of the selected mitigation option.
Tanyu CV-4 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Foundation Evaluation, Africa 2008-2009 Design engineer of a project on providing engineering services for a major LNG facility design and construction for a confidential client. Prepared calculation packages for evaluating settlement of recently placed sand fill prior to construction of foundation and evaluated capacity of constructed soil-mix columns for ground improvement and foundation support.
Soldier Beam and Lagging Earth Retention System Design, CA 2008 Design engineer of a project on designing 35 ft high three-tier tieback anchored soldier beam and lagging wall in downtown Los Angeles for a major school construction. Performed design calculations, developed construction and permit drawings, and provided technical support during construction.
Value Engineering and Construction Inspection, MI 2008 Provided value engineering for a micropile underpinning and jet-grouted column temporary shoring wall for excavating contaminated soils for industrial facility in western Michigan. Performed technical review of design and site visit for construction inspection.
Integrity Evaluation of an Existing Gabion Retaining Wall, PA 2007-2008 Assistant design engineer of a project on evaluating the integrity of 30-ft high gabion-faced MSE wall for a distribution center and providing opinion about its long-term stability. Performed detailed slope stability and reliability-based analyses to support lead design engineer’s recommendations for long-term movement monitoring and stormwater control systems.
Soldier Beam and Lagging Earth Retention System Design, TX 2007 Assistant design engineer of a project on designing 25-ft deep temporary excavation support system design for major hospital expansion in Houston. Provided assistance with design analyses for the one- and two-tier tieback anchored soldier beam and lagging wall and a soil nail wall.
Evaluation of a New Drain Tube, MA 2005 Task manager and design engineer of a project on evaluating a new drain tube for exterior footing drain applications. Responsibilities include managing budget for tasks, reviewing building codes, Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) specifications, International Code Council (ICC) codified test methods for drain pipes and providing a work plan to be presented to ICC to certify the use of this new drain.
C. Landfill Engineering/Remedial Design Projects
Landfill Feasibility Study on Canyon Like Geology, KY 2010-2011 Project manager and design engineer of a project on evaluating the feasibility of a proposed coal combustion residual waste landfill to be situated over a 135-acre existing ash reservoir in Kentucky. Wrote the proposal and won the work. Responsibilities include managing budget, site characterization, writing a comprehensive fatal flow analyses report, and overseeing the efforts to develop conceptual site model and landfill layout and liquefaction analyses.
Tanyu CV-5 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Landfill Cover Evaluation, IL 2006-2011 Task manager and design engineer of a project on designing and permitting a cover system for a Superfund landfill site. Responsibilities include managing budget for tasks, supervising and mentoring team of junior engineers. In addition, develop the equivalency of three different cover systems based on nine CERCLA remedy selection criteria as described in 40 CFR 300.430.f, design passive and active gas systems to characterize gas migration, develop clay borrow site, and design Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) approved cover system. Cover system design includes global and veneer stability, stormwater and infiltration analyses.
Designing and Permitting Canyon-Like Residual Waste Landfill, OH 2006-2009 Co-project manager and principal design engineer of a project on designing and permitting a residual waste landfill on an old river bed within a 95-acre canyon-like topography (i.e., ~100 ft relief). Responsibilities included co-managing the budget, supervising and mentoring a team of junior engineers, and client relationships. In addition, lead the efforts for design calculations of the 300 ft high landfill (i.e., leachate and stormwater management, hydrostatic uplift, veneer stability, liquefaction, settlement, and static and seismic slope stability calculations), developed civil layouts, wrote specifications, CQA plan, and narratives to describe the work for permit application from Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA). Design permitted by OEPA and is ready for construction.
Designing and Permitting Residual Waste Landfill Over an Ash Pond, OH 2005-2007 Task manager and design engineer of a project on designing and permitting a residual waste landfill over an existing 65 ft deep 100-acre fly ash and minespoil reservoir. Responsibilities included managing budget for tasks and supervising and mentoring team of junior engineers. In addition, participated in geophysical site characterization using downhole S-wave survey to identify potential large void spaces within foundation strata, performed stability analyses including hydrostatic uplift, veneer stability, static and seismic stability, designed subsurface drainage system to convey water generated by consolidation of fly ash foundation, designed a 30 ft high geosynthetic reinforced MSE wall, participated in developing civil layouts for permitting and construction, and lead a clay borrow investigation.
Cover System Design for an Existing Municipal Waste Landfill, PA 2006 Design engineer and peer reviewer of a project on designing cover system for an existing municipal waste landfill. Developed construction bidding drawings based on Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) regulations for soil cover, stormwater conveyance, and on-site stockpile grading. In addition, peer reviewed existing design calculations.
Remediation of a Closed Landfill, IL 2004-2005 Design engineer and CQA manager of a project on developing a remedial design for a closed unlined landfill where leachate seeps were observed in the nearby drainage ditch. Developed a geotechnical and hydrogeological site model, designed a 450-ft long remedial trench drain and ditch bank slope stabilization, developed construction drawings, prepared engineer’s cost estimates, wrote specifications and construction quality assurance (CQA) plan, and provided field services for quality control.
Tanyu CV-6 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Gas Management and CQA of a Superfund Site, IL 2003-2005 Assistant design engineer and assistant CQA manager of a project on designing a cover system and providing CQA services for a 64-acre superfund landfill site located north of Chicago. Assisted modifications to gas management design, documented and checked the quality of the cover system construction including quality and compaction of clay and vegetative soil covers, installation of geosynthetics including double sided geocomposite, geomembrane, geosynthetic clay liner, and geotextile, construction of gas collection system including installation of lateral solid and perforated gas collection lines, and construction of ~800 feet long and 15 feet deep slurry cut-off wall.
III. PUBLICATIONS
Citation indices determined from Google Scholar Feb. 2021 All number of citations: 1664 H-index: 16 (breakdown of each number of citations per article can be viewed at https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Ilr0xPcAAAAJ&hl=en) i10-index: 30 (number of publications with at least 10 citations)
A. Dissertation and Thesis
Tanyu, B. F. (2003) "Working Platforms for Flexible Pavements Using Industrial By-Products”, Dissertation - University of Wisconsin-Madison, May. Advisors: Professor Tuncer Edil, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, F.ASCE – Emeritus Professor Craig Benson, Ph.D., P.E., D.GE, NAE, F.ASCE. (Currently in University of Virginia – Dean of School of Engineering)
Tanyu, B. F. (1999) “Correlation of Gypsum Content in Soils of North Texas to Sulfate Induced Deformation of Road Subgrades”, Thesis - University of Texas- Arlington, May. Advisor: Professor Burke Burkart, Ph.D. – Emeritus
B. Books/Government Manuals
5. Tanyu, B. F. and Abbaspour, A. (2020) “Evaluation of Use of Crushed Hydraulic Cement Concrete (CHCC) as an Additive to Base Course/Subbase Material”, 83 pages. Virginia Transportation Research Council (VTRC), Report Number VTRC 21- R12, Virginia Department of Transportation, Charlottesville, VA.
4. Zornberg, J.G., Christopher, B.R., Leshchinsky, D., Han, J., Tanyu, B.F., Morsy, A.M., Shen, P., Gebremariam, F.T., Jiang, Y., and Mofarraj, B. (2018) “Defining the Boundary Conditions for Composite Behavior of Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil (GRS) Structures”, 997 pages. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Project 24-41, Transportation Research Board, Washington DC.
Tanyu CV-7 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
3. Tanyu, B. F., Sabatini, P. J., and Berg, R. R. (2008) “Earth Retaining Structures- Load and Resistance Factor Design”. A book specifically designed to be used to teach National Highway Institute (NHI) Course Number 132036, 792 pages. Document No.: FHWA-NHI-05-046 (Supersedes 2005 version), National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
2. Sabatini, P. J. and Tanyu, B. F. (2006), “Micropile Design and Construction”. A book specifically designed to be used to teach NHI Course Number 132078, 452 pages. Document No.: FHWA-NHI-05-039, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
1. Tanyu, B. F., Sabatini, P. J., and Berg, R. R. (2005) “Earth Retaining Structures- Allowable Stress Design”. A book specifically designed to be used to teach National Highway Institute (NHI) Course Number 132036, 679 pages. Document No.: FHWA- NHI-05-046, National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
C. Articles in Preparation for Peer-Reviewed Journals
5. Using Force Sensing Resistor to Evaluate Lateral Earth Pressure Distribution Between Closely Spaced Geosynthetic Reinforcements
4. Characteristic behavior of cross-anisotropic deposits of granular materials
3. Use of C4.5 Machine Learning Algorithm to Predict Rainfall Induced Landslides
2. Evaluation of Long-term Performance of Bituminous Liner Materials in Salt Pond
1. Hydraulic Conductivity of Geosynthetic Clay Liner Overlaps
D. Articles in-Review in Peer-Reviewed Journals (* Student co-author and ** visiting faculty co-author both advised by me)
4. Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B. F., Dawson, A. (2021) “Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) As An Unbound Base Course Material: A Mechanistic Design Approach Based on Multi-Stage Repeated Load Triaxial Tests” Submitted for review.
3. Yavuz, B., Aboubacar, M. H., Tanyu, B. F., and Sari, S. A. (2020) “Investigation of the Quality of Armour Stones Used in Rubble Mound Breakwater in Guzelbahce (Izmir), Turkey”, Submitted for review.
2. Gu., M., Collin, J., Han, J., Zhang, Z., Tanyu, B.F., Leschinsky, D., Ling, H.I., Rimoldo, P. “Pseudo-static Behavior of Reinforced Gabion Walls with Large Reinforcement Spacing”. Submitted for review.
Tanyu CV-8 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
1. Soleimanbeigi, A., Ozocak, A., Li, B., Akmaz, E., Dayioglu, A. Y., Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., and Likos, W. J. (2020) “Mechanical and Hydraulic Compatibility of RAP with Geosynthetics Used in MSE Walls”, Submitted for review.
E. Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed Journals (* GMU student advised by me and ** Student co-author advised by others) (*** Visiting faculty co-author advised by me)
40. Abbaspour, A.* and Tanyu, B. F. (2021) “Use of Image Analysis to Quantify the Chemical Clogging Phenomenon and Loss of Geotextile Serviceability in Subdrains Placed Adjacent to Recycled Concrete Aggregate”, Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), In-press.
39. Abbaspour, A.* and Tanyu, B. F. (2020) “Effects of Field Stockpiling on Leaching Calcareous Constituents From Recycled Concrete Aggregate To Be Used As Unbound Base Course/Subbase Material”, Journal of Innovative Transportation, In- press.
38. Gebremariam, F.*, Tanyu, B. F., Guler, E., Urgessa, G.S., and Shen, P. (2020) “Numerical Investigation of Reinforced Soil Structures with GRS-IBS Design Features”, Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), In-press, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.20.00031
37. Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B. F., Zainab B.* (2020) “Development of an artificial neural network (ANN)-based model to predict permanent deformation of base course containing reclaimed asphalt pavement (RAP)”, Journal of Road Materials and Pavement Design, Taylor and Francis Publication (UK) https://doi.org/10.1080/14680629.2020.1773304
36. Morsy, A., Zornberg, J., Leshchinsky, D., Christopher, B., Han, J., Tanyu, B. F. (2020) “Experimental Evaluation of The Interaction Among Neighboring Reinforcements in Geosynthetic- Reinforced Soils”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers Publication (US), https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0002365
35. Gebremariam, F*, Tanyu, B. F., Christopher, B., Leshchinsky, D., Han, J., Zornberg, G. (2020) “Evaluation of Vertical Stress Distribution in Field Monitored GRS-IBS Structure”, Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), Volume 27, No. 4, pp. 414-431, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.20.00004
34. Gebremariam, F.*, Tanyu, B. F., Christopher, B., Leshchinsky, D., Zornberg, J. G., Han, J. (2020) “Evaluation of Required Connection Load in GRS-IBS Structures under Service Loads”, Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), In-press, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.20.00022
Tanyu CV-9 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
33. Akmaz, E.*, Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B.F., Guler, E.F. (2020) “Construction Quality Control for Unbound Base Reclaimed Asphalt Aggregate Using Light Weight Deflectometer”, Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US) https://doi: 10.1177/0361198120934473
32. Abbaspour, A. and Tanyu, B. F. (2020) “CO2 Sequestration by Carbonation Processes of Rubblized Concrete at Standard Conditions and the Related Mineral Stability Diagrams”, Journal of Sustainable Chemistry & Engineering, ACS Publication (US), Volume 8, Issue 17, pp. 6647 - 6656 https://doi.org/10.1021/acssuschemeng.9b07690
31. Shen, P., Han, J., Zornberg, J. G., Tanyu, B. F., Christopher, B. R., Leshchinsky, D. (2020) “Responses of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil (GRS) “Abutments Under Bridge Slab Loading: Numerical Investigation”, Computers and Geotechnics Journal, Engineers Publication (UK), Volume 123. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2020.103566
30. Ullah, S.* and Tanyu, B. F. (2019) “Methodology to Develop Design Guidelines to Construct Unbound Base Course with Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP)”, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 223, pp. 463-476. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.06.196
29. Soleimanbeigi, A., Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A. H., Florio, P. , Abbaspour*, A. Dayioglu, A. Y., and Likos, W. J. (2019) “Evaluation of Recycled Concrete Aggregate for Geosynthetic-Reinforced MSE Walls” Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), Volume 26, Issue 4, pp. 396- 412, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgein.19.00025
28. Shen, P., Han, J., Zornberg, J. G., Morsy, A. M., Leshchinsky, D., Tanyu, B. F., Xu, C. (2019) “Two and Three-Dimensional Numerical Analyses of Geosynthetic- Reinforced Soil (GRS) Piers” Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 47, Issue 3, pp. 352-368. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2019.01.010
27. Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B. F., Guler, E. F., Hoppe, E. J., Akmaz, E.* (2019) “Evaluation of the Long-Term Performance of Woven Geotextile Used Between Base Course and Subgrade of a Paved Road” Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US), https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119827567
26. Jiang, Y.**, Han, J., Zornberg, J., Parsons, R., Leshchinsky, D., and Tanyu B. F. (2019) “Numerical Analysis of Field Geosynthetic-Reinforced Retaining Walls with Secondary Reinforcement” Journal of Geotechique, ICE Publication (UK), Volume 69, Issue 2, pp. 122-132, https://doi.org/10.1680/jgeot.17.P.118
Tanyu CV-10 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
25. Abbaspour, A.* and Tanyu, B. F. (2019) “Tufa Precipitation from Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA) over Geotextile: Mechanism, Composition, and Affecting Parameters” Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 196, pp. 317-329, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.10.146
24. Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B. F., and Hoppe, E. J. (2018) “Optimizing the Gradation of Fine Processed Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Aggregate Blends for Unbound Base Courses” Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US) http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0361198118758683
23. Abbaspour, A.*, Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A., Dayioglu, A.** (2018) “Methodology to Evaluate Hydraulic Compatibility of Geotextile and RCA in Underdrain Systems” Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 67–84, doi: 10.1680/jgein.17.00034
22. Tanyu, B. F., Yavuz, A. B.***, and Ullah, S.* (2017) “A Parametric Study to Improve Suitability of Micro-Deval Test to Assess Unbound Base Coarse Aggregates” Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 37, pp. 328-338, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.173
21. Gu, M.**, Collin, J. G., Han, J., Zhang, Z., Tanyu, B. F., Leschinsky, D., Ling, H. I., and Rimoldi, P. (2017) “Numerical Analysis of Instrumented Mechanically Stabilized Gabion Walls with Large Vertical Reinforcement Spacing” Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 45, Issue 4, pp. 294-306, doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.04.002.
20. Borga, M.*, Tanyu, B. F., Ferreira, C. Garzon, J.**, and Onurfrychuk, M.* (2017) “A Geospatial Framework to Estimate Depth of Scour under Buildings Due To Storm Surge in Coastal Areas” Journal of Natural Hazards, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 87, Issue 3, pp. 1285-1311, doi: 10.1007/s11069-017-2817-3
19. Yavuz, A. B., Atay, S., Colak, M., and Tanyu, B. F. (2017) “Durability Assessments of Rare Green Andesites Widely Used as Building Stones in Buca (Izmir), Turkey”, Journal of Environmental Earth Sciences, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 76, Issue 5, Article No. 211, pp. 1-15, doi: 10.1007/s12665-017-6531-y
18. Cook, C.*, Tanyu, B. F., Yavuz, A. B.*** (2017) “Effect of Particle Shape on Durability and Performance of Unbound Aggregate Base”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Publication (US), Volume 29, Issue 2, pp. 04016221-1 thru 04016221-12, doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001752
17. Abbaspour, A.*, Tanyu, B. F., and Cetin, B. (2016) “Impact of Aging on Leaching Characteristics of Recycled Concrete Aggregate”, Journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 23, Issue 20, pp. 20835- 20852, doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-7217-9
Tanyu CV-11 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
16. Bestgen, J.O.**, Cetin, B., Tanyu, B.F. (2016) “Effects of Extraction Methods and Factors on Leaching of Metals from Recycled Concrete Aggregates”, Journal of Environmental Science and Pollution Research, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 23, Issue 13, pp. 12983-13002,doi: 10.1007/s11356-016-6456-0
15. Yavuz, A. B., Akal, C., Turk, N., Colak, M., and Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Investigation of Discrepancy Between Engineering Properties and Durability of the Alacati Tuffs Used in Constructing Buildings in Western Turkey”, Journal of Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 93, pp. 439-448, doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.017.
14. Schnebele, E.**, Tanyu, B.F., Cervone, G., and Waters, N. (2015) “Review of Remote Sensing Methodologies for Pavement Management and Assessment”, European Transport Research Review, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 7, Issue 2, pp. 1-19, doi:10.1007/s12544-015-0156-6.
13. Leshchinsky, B., Olsen, M, and Tanyu, B.F. (2015) “Contour Connection Method for Automated Identification and Classification of Landslide Deposits”, Journal of Computers and Geosciences, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 74, pp. 27-38, doi:10.1016/j.cageo.2014.10.007.
12. Ramanathan, R.**, Aydilek, A, and Tanyu, B.F. (2015) “Development of a GIS- Based Failure Investigation System for Highway Soil Slopes”, Journal of Frontiers of Earth Science, Springer Publication (UK), Volume 9, Issue 2, pp. 165-178, doi:10.1007/s11707-014-0485-0.
11. Awad, M.I.*, and Tanyu, B.F. (2014) “Laboratory Evaluation of Governing Mechanism of Frictionally Connected MSEW Face and Implications on Design”, Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 42, Issue 5, pp. 468-478, doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2014.07.006.
10. DeJong, J, Martinez, B., Ginn, T.R., Hunt, C, Major, D., and Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Development of Scaled Repeated Five-Spot Treatment Model for Examining Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation Feasibility in Field Applications”. Geotechnical Testing Journal, American Society of Testing and Materials (ASTM) International (US), Volume 37, Issue 3, pp. 1-13, doi:10.1520/GTJ20130089. (See Section II.D. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal Paper Award)
9. Guney, Y., Cetin, B. Aydilek, A.H., Tanyu, B.F. and Koparal, A.S. (2014) “Utilization of Sepiolite Materials as a Bottom Liner Material in Solid Waste Landfills”, Waste Management, Elsevier Publication (US), Volume 34, No. 1, pp. 112-124, doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2013.10.008.
8. Tanyu, B.F., Aydilek, A.H., Lau, A.W., Edil, T.B., and Benson, C.H. (2013) “Laboratory Evaluation of Geocell-Reinforced Gravel Subbase Over Poor
Tanyu CV-12 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Subgrades”, Geosynthetics International Journal, Institution of Civil Engineers Publication (UK), Volume 20, Issue 2, pp. 47-61, doi:10.1680/gein.13.00001.
7. DeJong, J.T., Soga, K.S., Kavazanijan, E., Burns, S., van Paassen, L., Fragazsy, R., Al Qabany, A., Aydilek, A.H., Bang, S..S., Burbank, M., Caslake, L., Chen, C.Y., Chhu, J., Ciiurli, S., Fauriel, S., Filet, A.E., Hamdan, N., Hata, T., Inagaki, Y., Jefferis, S., Kuo, M., Larrahondo, J., Manning, D., Martinez, B., Mortensen, B., Nelson, D., Palomino, A., Renforth, P., Santamarina,, J.C., Seagren, E.A., Tanyu, B.F., Tsesarsky, M., and Weaver, T. (alphabetical order after Fragazsy. R.) (2013) “Biogeochemical Processes and Geotechnical Applications: Progress, Opportunities, and Challenges”, Geotechnique, Institute of Civil Engineers (UK), Volume 63, Issue. 4, pp. 287-301, doi:10.1680/geot.SIP13.P.017.
6. Martinez, B. C., Dejong, J.T., Mortensen, B.M., Barkouki, T.H., Ginn, T.R., Hunt, C., Tanyu, B.F., Major, D. (2013) “Experimental Optimization of Microbial Induced Carbonate Precipitation for Soil Improvement”, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, American Society of Civil Engineers (US), Volume 139, No. 4, pp. 587-598, doi:10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000787.
5. Kim, W. H., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., and Tanyu, B. F. (2006) “Deflection of Prototype Geosynthetic-Reinforced Working Platforms Over Soft Subgrade”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US), Volume 1975, pp. 137-145, doi:10.3141/1975-17.
4. Tanyu, B. F., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H and Kim, W. H. (2005) “Development of Methodology to Include Structural Contribution of Alternative Working Platforms in Pavement Structure”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, Volume 1936, National Research Council (US), pp. 70-77, doi:10.3141/1936-09.
3. Kim, W. H., Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H and Tanyu, B. F. (2005) “Structural Contribution of Geosynthetic-Reinforced Working Platforms in Flexible Pavement”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US), Volume 1936, pp. 43-50, doi:10.3141/1936-06.
2. Tanyu, B. F., Benson, C. H, Edil, T. B. and Kim, W. H. (2004) “Equivalency of Crushed Rock and Three Industrial By-Products For Working Platforms During Pavement Construction”, Journal Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US), Volume 1874, pp. 59-69, doi:10.3141/1874-07.
1. Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., Bin-Shafique, M. S., Tanyu, B. F., Kim, W. H., and Senol, A. (2002) “Field Evaluation of Construction Alternatives for Roadway Over Soft Subgrade”, Journal of Transportation Research Record, National Research Council (US), Volume 1786, pp. 36-48, doi:10.3141/1786-05.
Tanyu CV-13 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
F. Articles Published in Peer-Reviewed Conference Proceedings (* GMU student advised by me)
16. Ullah, S. * and Tanyu, B. F. (2020) “Effect of Variation in Moisture Content on the Mechanical Properties of Base Course Constructed with RAP-VA Blends”, Geocongress 2020, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Minneapolis, MN, February.
15. Abbaspour, A.* and Tanyu, B.F. (2019) “Affecting Parameters on Tufa Precipitation from Recycled Concrete Aggregate”, Environmental Geotechnology, Recycled Waste and Sustainable Engineering, 2nd International Conference Proceedings, Chicago, IL, June 17 This article recognized during the conference as “Honorable Mention” status.
14. Abbaspour, A.* and Tanyu, B.F. (2019) “Evaluation of Hydraulic Compatibility of Geotextile and RCA in Underdrain Systems Under Turbulent Flow Regime”, Geosynthetics Conference Compendium, International Geosynthetics Society, February.
13. Shen, P., Han, J., Zornberg, J. G., Tanyu, B. F., and Leshchinsky, D. (2018) “Three- Dimensional Numerical Analysis of Performance of a Geosynthetic-Reinforced Soil Pier”, Proceedings of GeoShanghai International Conference, pp. 374-381, May.
12. Ullah, S.*, Tanyu, B. F., and Hoppe, E. J. (2018) “Optimizing the Gradation of Fine Processed Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement and Aggregate Blends for Unbound Base Courses” Transportation Research Board Compendium, National Research Council (US), January.
11. Morsy, A.M., Zornberg, J.G., Christopher, B.R., Leshchinsky, D., Tanyu, B.F., and Han, J. (2017) “Experimental Approach to Characterize Soil-Reinforcement Composite Interaction” In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (19th ICSMGE), International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE), September 17-22, Seoul, Korea, pp. 451-454.
10. Jiang, Y., Han, J., Zornberg, J. G., Leschinsky, D., Christopher, B. R., and Tanyu, B. F. (2017) “Numerical Evaluation of Boundary Effects on Interaction between Geosynthetic Reinforcement and Backfill”, Geotechnical Frontiers, American Society of Civil Engineers Conference, Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) 280, pp. 299- 305, March.
9. Abbaspour, A.*, Tanyu, B. F., Cetin, B., and Brown, M. C. (2016) “Stockpiling Recycled Concrete Aggregate: Changes in Physical Properties and Leachate Characteristics Due to Carbonation and Aging”, Geo-Chicago-Sustainability, Energy, and the Geoenvironment, American Society of Civil Engineers Conference, Geotechnical Special Publication (GSP) 272, pp. 73-82, August.
Tanyu CV-14 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
8. Tanyu, B. F., Abbaspour, A.*, Collin, J. G., Leshchinsky, D., Han, J., Ling, H.I., and Rimoldi, P. (2016) “Case Study: Instrumentation of a Hybrid MSE Wall System With Up To 2 m Vertical Spacing Between Reinforcements”, 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics, GeoAmericas, Volume 2, pp. 1481-1490, April.
7. Xu, L.**, Ling, H.I., Colin, J. G., Han, J., Leshchinsky, D., Tanyu, B. F., Li, L., Kawabata, T, and Rimoldi, P. (2016) “Centrifugal Modeling of Gabion Facing Geosynthetic Reinforced Soil Retaining Walls”, 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics, GeoAmericas, Volume 1, pp. 865-886, April.
6. Bozok, O, Tanyu, B.F., Sabatini, P., and Seymour, J.P. (2015) “Reliability Analysis of an Existing Ash Basin Embankment”, World of Coal Ash (WOCA) Conference, Nashville, Tennessee, Article No. 33, pp. 1-12, May, open access: http://www.flyash.info/2015/033-bozok-2015.pdf
5. Tanyu, B.F., Neal, W., Seymour, J.P., Bodine, D., Bozok, O. (2011) “Case Study: Stability of Two Horizontal to One Vertical Embankment”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geo-Frontiers Conference, Dallas, Texas, pp. 3629-3638, March.
4. DeJong, J.T., Martinez, B.M., Mortensen, D.C., Nelson, D.C., Waller, J.T., Weil, M.H., Ginn, T.R., Weathers, T., Barkouki, T., Fujita, Y., Redden, G., Hunt, C., Major, D., Tanyu, B. (2009) “Upscaling of Bio-Mediated Soil Improvement”, 17th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Alexandria, Egypt, Vol. 3, pp. 2300-2303, October.
3. Bodine, D, Tanyu, B.F., Sabatini, P.J., Ajlouni, M.A., and Limes, D.E. (2009) “Design and Permitting of a Residual Waste Landfill Over An Existing Ash Reservoir”, American Society of Civil Engineers, International Foundation Congress and Equipment Expo, Orlando, FL, pp. 496-503, March.
2. Edil, T. B., Kim, W. H., Benson, C. H., and Tanyu, B. F. (2007) “Contribution of Geosynthetic Reinforcement to Granular Layer Stiffness”, American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Special Publication on Soil and Material Inputs for Mechanistic-Empirical Pavement Design, GeoDenver, Geotechnical Special Publication 169, pp. 1-10, February.
1. Tanyu, B. F., Kim, W. H., Edil, T. B. and Benson, C. H. (2003) “Comparison of Laboratory Resilient Moduli with Back-Calculated Elastic Moduli from Large-Scale Model Experiments and FWD Tests on Granular Materials”, Resilient Modulus Testing for Pavement Components, STP 1437, G. Durham, A. Marr, and W. De Groff, eds., American Standards and Testing Material, West Conshohocken, PA, pp. 191-208.
Tanyu CV-15 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
G. Other Publications – Not Peer-Reviewed (*: GMU student advised by me)
5. Tanyu, B. (2017) “A permanent fill-in?” Invited to draft an article on testing use of recycled concrete for Mechanically Stabilized Earth backfill. Published in Roads and Bridges Magazine, February Issue. https://www.roadsbridges.com/permanent-fill
4. Collin, J.G., Abbaspour, A.*, Gu, M., Han, J., Kawabata, T., Leshchinsky, D., Li, L, Ling, H.I., Tanyu, B., and Xu, L. (2016) (alphabetical order after Collin J.) “Reinforcement Vertical Spacing Research”, a summary of research report prepared for Maccaferri by the Collin Group.
3. Martin, J., Benson, C., Chapman, M., Eddy, M., Green, R., Kammerer, A., Lasley, S., Lazarte, C., Nikolau, S., Tanyu, B., and Tutle, M. (2011) (alphabetical order after Martin. J.) “Geotechnical Reconnaissance of the 2011 Central Virginia Earthquake” prepared by Geotechnical Extreme Event Reconnaissance Team (GEER), Report No. GEER-026, doi:10.18118/G6W88F http://www.geerassociation.org/index.php/component/geer_reports/?view=geerreport s&id=38 (accessed in August 2016)
2. Baker, G., Heslinga, D., Gold, M., Huff, L., Israel, R., Lazzara, J., McDonald, D., Mesha, P., Payonk, J., Staron, A., Stirk, M., Tanyu, B. F., Williams, C. (2010) (alphabetical order) “I-LAST: Illinois Livable and Sustainable Transportation Rating System and Guide”, prepared for Illinois Department of Transportation, January, http://www.eastsidehighway.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/I-LAST-Version-2- DRAFT.pdf (accessed March 2016).
1. Edil, T. B., Benson, C. H., Kim, W. K., and Tanyu, B. F. (2005) “Development of Methodology to Include Strength Contribution of Select Subgrade Materials in Pavement Structure”, prepared for Wisconsin Highway Research Program, December, http://wisdotresearch.wi.gov/wp-content/uploads/03-12- strengthcontribution-f1.pdf (accessed September 2015).
IV. INVITED LECTURES/PRESENTATIONS/INTERVIEWS AND WORKSHOPS
45. Tanyu, B. F. (2020) “Construction Quality Control of Unbound Base Course Using Light Weight Deflectometer: An Example with RAP”, Mid-Atlantic Quality Assurance Workshop, Williamsburg, VA, February 12.
44. Tanyu, B. F. (2019) “Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Geotransportation Infrastructures with Geosynthetics”, 8th International Geosynthetics Conference, Bogazici University, Istanbul – TURKEY, May 16 -17.
Tanyu CV-16 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
43. Abbaspour, A. and Tanyu, B. F. (2019). “Affecting Parameters on Tufa Precipitation from Recycled Concrete Aggregate”, Transportation Research Board Standing Committee on Geo-Environmental Processes (AFP40), TRB 98th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. January 13, Invited co-speaker.
42. Tanyu, B. F. (2018) “Evaluation of Using Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) As Unbound Base Aggregate Layer”, Invited speaker, Virginia Asphalt Conference and Expo, Virginia Asphalt Association, Richmond-VA, December 5.
41. Tanyu, B. F. (2018) “Potential Considerations When Placing Recycled Concrete Aggregate Adjacent to Geotextiles”, Invited speaker, Huesker Inc., Charlotte-N.C., October 18.
40. Tanyu, B. F. (2018) “Evaluation of Using Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Transportation Infrastructures with Geotextile Components”, Invited speaker, 97th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, Session 814: Characterization of Alternative Aggregates, January 10.
39. Tanyu, B. F. (2018) “Effects of Different Sample Preparation Methods to the Performance of Aggregates Created from Blending Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement (RAP) with Virgin Aggregate”, Invited speaker, 97th Annual Transportation Research Board Meeting, AFS70 Aggregates Committee Meeting, January 8.
38. Soleimanbeigi, A., Likos, W., Tanyu, B. F., Aydilek, A., Abbaspour, A., and Dayioglu, A. Y. (2017) “Hydraulic and Mechanical Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate Reinforced with Geosynthetics”, 7th International Geosynthetics Conference, Bogazici University, Istanbul – TURKEY, May 11 -12, Invited co- speaker.
37. Tanyu, B. F. (2017) “Use of Recycled Concrete As An Alternative Aggregate”, 4th International Stone Congress, Izmir – TURKEY, March 20 – 25, See also Section E.
36. Tanyu, B. F. (2017) “Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate as Backfill to Construct Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls”, Invited speaker by AFP10 Committee at the Transportation Research Board Annual Meeting, Washington, DC, January 9.
35. Tanyu, B. F. (2016) “Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Geotransportation Applications”, Invited attendee and speaker, Third U.S.-Japan Geoenvironmental Engineering Workshop, American Society of Civil Engineers, Chicago, IL, August 14.
34. Tanyu, B. F. (2016) “Laboratory Evaluation of Geocell-Reinforced Gravel Subbase Over Poor Subgrades ”, Invited presenter for the Paper’s with Award Session, GeoAmericas Conference, Miami, FL, April 11. (This is the presentation of the article listed in Section II.A.v.8)
Tanyu CV-17 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
33. Tanyu, B. F. (2016) “Recycled Materials in Geo-Engineering and Transportation”, Invited speaker, National Capital Section Meeting, American Society of Civil Engineers, Washington, D.C., March 31.
32. Tanyu, B.F. (2016) “Use of Recycled Concrete as Base Course”, Workshop 128-Use of Byproduct Fines and Recycled Materials for Sustainable Construction of Transportation Infrastructure, Transportation Research Board of National Academies, 95th Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., January 10.
31. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Effective Use of Back Analyses For Landslide Assessment and Rehabilitation”, Invited presenter for American Society of Civil Engineers, George Mason Student Chapter, Fairfax, VA, November 3.
30. Tanyu, B.F. (2015) “Use and Design with Geosynthetics”, Attendee, Educational workshop organized by International Geosynthetics Society (IGS), North American Chapter (NAGS), Austin, TX, July 28-29. (The cost of this trip is paid by IGS-NAGS as listed in Section C – Travel Grants)
29. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “LRFD Design for Earth Retaining Structures”, Invited lecturer, National Highway Institute – Short Course, Hosted by CADOT, Course No.: 132036, Session No.: 20150921, Sacramento, CA, June 23-25.
28. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “GMU Sustainability/Smart Ground” Invited attendee, Round Table Discussion with Fairfax City officials, Northern Virginia Regional Commission Director, Mayor of City of Bottrop-Germany, and GMU Faculty form Geography Dept., invited by Ms. Rita Rowand – GMU Global Strategy Office Program Manager, June 8.
27. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Sustainable Design Practices in Geo-Transportation”, Invited presenter, Mason Earth Day Talks, Center for Ocean-Land-Atmosphere Studies, George Mason University, invited by Jim Kinter – Director, May 22.
26. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Research Development in International Platform and Information on Sustainable Geotransportation Infrastructure Research Group in George Mason”, Invited presenter, Office of Global Strategy at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, invited by Ms. Rita Rowand – Program Manager, April 2.
25. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Engineering Solutions That Support Resilient Infrastructure”, Interviewed by Ms. Holly O'Dell, ([email protected]), Associate at Hardin Business Communications for an article written for Engineering360 website on Engineering Solutions That Support Resilient Infrastructure, Article appeared on March 16.
24. Tanyu, B. F. (2015) “Can a Rating System Ensure Long-Term Infrastructure Sustainability?”, Interviewed by Ms. Holly O'Dell, ([email protected]),
Tanyu CV-18 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Associate at Hardin Business Communications for an article written for Engineering360 website on Can A Rating System Ensure Infrastructure Sustainability?, Article appeared on January 12.
23. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “LRFD Design for Earth Retaining Structures”, Invited lecturer, National Highway Institute – Short Course, Hosted by NJDOT, Course No.: 132036, Session No.: 20090368, Trenton, NJ, December 2-4.
22. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Use of Recycled Concrete as a Base Course Aggregate in Conjunction with Geotextile Underdrain Systems”, Invited presenter, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Blacksburg, VA, November 12.
21. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Use of Gradient Ratio Tests to Evaluate Clogging Potential of Typical Filter Fabrics”, Invited presenter, Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Virginia Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Research Advisory Committee Meeting, Charlottesville, VA, October 22.
20. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Design of Anchored Externally Stabilized Earth Retaining Structure”, Invited lecturer, American Society of Civil Engineers - Short Course on Earth Retaining Structures, Baltimore, MD, October 16-17.
19. Leshchinsky, B., Tanyu, B.F. and Olsen, M (2014) “Detecting Landslide Deposits”, Invited Presentation, Federal Highway Administration, Bridge and Geotechnical Engineering Division, Washington, DC, October 10.
18. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Effects of Particle Shape on Performance of Road Base Aggregates in Light of New MEPDG Pavement Design Guidelines”, Invited speaker, Schnabel Engineering, Rockville, MD, May 8.
17. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “LRFD Design for Earth Retaining Structures”, Invited lecturer, National Highway Institute – Short Course, Hosted by ILDOT, Course No.: 132036, Session No.: 20090368, Springfield, IL, June 11-13.
16. Tanyu, B. F. (2014) “Geosynthetics – Yesterday, Today, and in the Future”, Invited moderator, Transportation Research Board Discussion Panel by Barry Christopher, Mark Wayne, Sam Allen, Ryan Berg, Daniel Alzamora, and David Suits, Washington D.C., January 13.
15. Tanyu, B. F. (2013) “Design and Construction of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls”, Invited lecturer, American Society of Civil Engineers - Short Course on Earth Retaining Structures, Pittsburgh, PA, November 7-8.
14. Tanyu, B. F. (2013) “Evaluation of Use of Recycled Concrete As An Additive To Base Coarse”, Invited speaker, Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Virginia Department of Transportation, Geotechnical Research Advisory Committee Meeting, Charlottesville, VA, November 6.
Tanyu CV-19 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
13. Tanyu, B.F. (2013) “Corrosion Monitoring and Performance of MSE Reinforcements”, Invited moderator, Transportation Research Board Webinar by Fishman K. and Hidden, S., August 29. 12. Tanyu, B. F. (2013) “Design and Construction of Nongravity Cantilever Earth Walls”, Invited lecturer, American Society of Civil Engineers - Short Course on Earth Retaining Structures, Washington, D.C., June 6-7.
11. Tanyu, B. F. (2013) “Design of Anchored Externally Stabilized Earth Retaining Structures”, Invited lecturer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Arlington, VA, May 21.
10. Tanyu, B. F. (2013) “LRFD Design for Earth Retaining Structures”, Invited lecturer, National Highway Institute – Short Course, Hosted by PennDOT, Course No.: 132036, Session No.: 20090368, Allentown, PA, March 26-28.
9. Tanyu, B.F. (2013) “What Does Sustainability Mean in Geo-Practice?”, Invited speaker, Deep Foundation Institute – Sustainability committee meeting, Woodley Park, VA, June 26.
8. Tanyu, B. F. (2012) “Back Analysis for Landslide in Pennsylvania Infrastructure”, Invited speaker, 1st International Alumni Reunion Conference, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, September 14.
7. Tanyu, B. F. (2012) “Use of Recycle Materials in Road Construction”, Invited Speaker, Virginia Center for Transportation Innovation and Research, Virginia Department of Transportation, Charlottesville, VA, April 9.
6. Tanyu, B.F. (2011) “Innovative Use of Microbial Calcite Precipitation to Improve Ash Pond Conditions”, Invited attendee and speaker, Second International Workshop on Bio-Soil Interactions and Engineering, National Science Foundation Workshop hosted by Cambridge University, Cambridge, UK, September 18.
5. Tanyu, B. F. (2010) “Challenges in Landfill Engineering and Development”, Invited panelist, American Society of Civil Engineers, Illinois Geotechnical Section, Chicago, IL, April 29.
4. Tanyu, B.F. (2010) “Monroe Plant Ash Basin Embankment Stabilization”, Invited speaker, Geoenvironmental Action Group Conference, Geosyntec Consultants, San Diego, CA, March 11.
3. Tanyu, B.F. (2009) “Landslide Evaluation Using Back Analyses”, Invited speaker, American Society of Civil Engineers, Illinois Geotechnical Section, Chicago, IL, February 11.
Tanyu CV-20 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
2. Tanyu, B.F. (2008) “Remediation of Kilbuck Landslide”, Invited speaker, Geoenvironmental Action Group Conference, Geosyntec Consultants, Baltimore, MD, April 9.
1. Tanyu, B.F. (2004) “Design of an Interceptor Trench in an Existing Old Landfill Complex”, Invited speaker, Association of Environmental and Engineering Geologists, North Central Section, Chicago, IL, May 18.
V. HONORS, AWARDS, AND RECOGNITIONS
Outstanding Service Award 2020 Organizer (Host) of 2019 Summer Workshop TRB ADC60: Resource Conservation and Recovery Committee National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
Certificate of Appreciation – Invited Speaker 2020 Invited by Virginia Department of Transportation Mid-Atlantic Planning Committee 53rd Annual Mid-Atlantic Quality Assurance Workshop
Invited International Keynote Speaker 2019 8th National Conference on Geosynthetics, Istanbul – TURKEY Invited by Bogazici University Organizing Committee Title of Presentation: Use of Recycled Concrete Aggregate in Geotransportation Infrastructures with Geosynthetics May 16 – 17, 2019
Geosynthetic Institute Fellowship (Granted to my Student) 2018 $5000 fellowship is awarded to my Ph.D. student (Mr. Ullah based on the research he is working on under my supervision on use of geotextiles for roads (See section III.G.ii.2 for student information)
TRB Service Recognition Award 2018 Committee Chair between 2012-2018 AFP40: Geo-Environmental Processes Committee National Academy of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine
ASCE Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2017 Editor’s Choice Award, April Publication Article on “Effect of Particle Shape on Durability and Performance of Unbound Aggregate Base” by Cook, Tanyu, and Yavuz (See section II.A.v.18)
Invited International Key Note Speaker 2017 4th International Stone Congress, Izmir – TURKEY Invited by the Izmir Branch of Turkish Chamber of Geological Engineers
Tanyu CV-21 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Technical Session: Aggregate and Reassessment of Stone Leftover Title of Presentation: Use of Recycled Concrete As An Alternative Aggregate March 20 – 25, 2017
Invited to Join Editorial Board for the GEGE Journal 2017 Geotechnical and Geological Engineering (GEGE) An International Journal Published by Springer since 1983
Geosynthetic Institute Fellowship (Granted to my Student) 2016 $5000 fellowship is awarded to my Ph.D. student (Mr. Abbaspour) based on the research he is working on under my supervision on recycled concrete aggregate
ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal Paper Award 2015 Hogentogler award - best published paper in 2014 Given by American Standard Testing Materials (ASTM) Committee D18
Visiting Affiliate Faculty 2014 University of Maryland, College Park, MD Invited by Dr. Ahmet H. Aydilek – Geotechnical Engineering Faculty Spent the Fall semester during the “GMU Study Leave”
Geosynthetics International Journal Paper Award 2014 Honorable mention for best published papers in 2013
Technical Excellence and Leadership 2014 Stability of Monroe Power Plant Ash Basin, Monroe-MI DTE Energy and Geosyntec Consultants Invited to Monroe, MI for this Recognition
National Science Foundation - Geotechnical Extreme Event Reconnaissance Team 2011 Invited by Dr. James R. Martin – Geotechnical Engineering Faculty Virginia Tech University, Blacksburg, VA
GeoEnvironmental Action Group Poster Excellence Award 2009 Geosyntec Consultants “Importance of Developing Representative Interface Shear Strength Testing Program”
GeoEnvironmental Action Group Poster Excellence Award 2004 Geosyntec Consultants “Micropile Design and Construction for Structural Support and Slope Stability”
Research Excellence Award 1999 University of Texas at Arlington, Earth and Environmental Sciences Department Award presented by the Dean of College of Science
Tanyu CV-22 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
VI. TEACHING AND ADVISING
A. Courses Developed and Taught
Graduate Courses CEIE 531 – Earth Retaining Structures and Slope Stability CEIE 634 – Groundwater and Geoenvironmental Design CEIE 690/636 – Sources of Geotechnical Data
Undergraduate Courses CEIE 331 – Soil Mechanics Lectures CEIE 331 – Laboratory component of Soil Mechanics Course CEIE 370 – Construction Systems
Cross Listed Graduate/Undergraduate Course CEIE 435/535 – Introduction to Engineering Geology
Independent studies tailored to advance specific individual research students CEIE 796 for PhD students: • Landslides • Properties of Geosynthetics • Properties of Recycled Asphalt Aggregate • Environmental Geotechnics • Engineering Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregate CEIE 796 for MS students: • GeoHazards and Scour Protection • MEPDG Design of Roadways CEIE 498 for Undergraduate research students: • Damage Analyses of Hurricanes (Taught with Dr. Ferreira)
B. Teaching/Advising Awards
Teaching Excellence Award 2014 National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration.
Teaching Excellence Award 2012 National Highway Institute, Federal Highway Administration.
Teaching Appreciation Award 1999 University of Texas at Arlington, Earth and Environmental Sciences Department.
Teaching Excellence Award 1998 University of Texas at Arlington, Earth and Environmental Sciences Department.
Tanyu CV-23 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
C. Undergraduate Research – Major Advisor ( * co-advised)
13. Mera Shabti, Andres Cruz, and Elisabeth Iannett Evaluating the Contribution of Wetlands to Coastal Resiliency Laboratory and Field study, Summer/Fall 2017 and Spring/Fall 2018 Outstanding Undergraduate Research Award, Spring 2018;GMU
12. Jigme Tenzin Preparation and Characterization of Samples to Perform Tufa Tests Worked in the geotechnical laboratory, Summer 2016.
11. Francisco Cascante Index Properties of Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Worked in the laboratory, Summer 2016
10. Marco Padilla Index Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregates Volunteered to work with my graduate student Aiyoub Abbaspour to obtain hands-on geotechnical laboratory experience, Spring and Summer 2014 and Summer 2015.
9. Mahyar Moradian Field Instrumentation Calibration and Installation Volunteered to work with my graduate student Fitsum Gebremariam to obtain hands-on geotechnical laboratory and field experience, Summer 2015.
8. Siddharath Singh Variability of Index Properties of Recycled Concrete Aggregates Volunteered to work with my graduate student Aiyoub Abbaspour to obtain hands-on geotechnical laboratory experience, Spring and Summer 2014 and Summer 2015.
7. Neha Seth Effects of Aggregate Shape on Durability Volunteered to work with my graduate student Clayton Cook to obtain hands-on geotechnical laboratory experience, Summer 2014.
6. Brian Todd Effects of Aggregate Shape on Durability Volunteered to work with my graduate student Clayton Cook to obtain hands-on geotechnical laboratory experience, Fall 2013.
CEIE Department Summer Research Fellow
5. Rita Soelwin Developing Recycled Concrete and Virgin Aggregate Admixtures Worked on setting-up gradient ratio tests with my graduate student Aiyoub Abbaspour, Summer 2015.
Tanyu CV-24 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
George Mason University OSCAR Undergraduate Research Students
6. Mera Shabti Flume Tests to Quantify Contribution of Vegetation to Coastal Resiliency, Fall 2018
5. Melissa Rossi* Creating Self-Sufficient Irrigation Systems Worked in the geotechnical laboratory, Fall 2017 Co-advised with Dr. Celso Ferreira
4. Nicole Nmair Evaluating the Suitability of Micro-Deval Apparatus to Assess the Durability of Aggregates Used in Commonwealth of Virginia on Road Construction. Advised during Summer 2015. (See section II.B.i.16)
3. Tom Barham* Correlation Between Safety of Corn Silos and Shear Strength of Aged Corn. Co-advised with Dr. Deborah Goodings, Fall 2013.
2. Daniel Scolose* Use of Hazus: MH Flood Model To Estimate Damage After Hurricane Sandy. Co-advised with Dr. Celso Ferreira, Spring 2013. His research achievement is published in GMU Review Volume 22 http://issuu.com/gmreview/docs/gmr_volume_22/91?e=3279065/7044241
1. Sean Lindenmuth Microbial Induced Calcite Precipitation in Fly Ash Ponds Advised during Summer 2012 and Fall 2012. (See section II.B.i.10)
F. Community Outreach - K-12
2. Akul Mehra Langley High School Great Falls, VA. Going from 10th to 11th and then from 11th to 12th grade. Volunteered two spend three days a week in my research laboratory to learn more about geotechnical engineering and associated laboratory experimentation, July 2015 and July 2016.
1. Max Kittsteiner Forest Park High School, Woodbridge, VA. Going from 11th to 12th grade. Volunteered to spend two days a week in my research laboratory to learn more about geotechnical engineering and associated laboratory experimentation, July 2014.
Tanyu CV-25 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
G. Graduate Research - Major Advisor ( * co-advised)
Ph.D. Students
4. Yashar Alimohammadlou (PhD) Landslide Forecasting: Inventory, Susceptibility, And Hazard Analyses Graduated May 2020.
3. Fitsum Gebremariam (PhD) Boundary Conditions For Composite Behavior Of Reinforced Soil Structures With Geosynthetics Graduated in May 2019.
2. Saad Ullah (PhD) Developing Guidelines for Sustainable Design: Developing a Methodology to Create an Equivalency Between Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement Aggregate and Virgin Aggregate Used in Road Base Layers Winner of 3 Minute Thesis Presentation Competition in VA. Graduated in December 2018. (See section II.A. for journal publications)
1. Aiyoub Abbaspour (PhD) Developing Guidelines for Sustainable Design: Use of Recycled Concrete in Presence of Filter Geotextile in Road Base Layers Graduated in August 2017. (See sections II.A for journal publications
M.S. (Scholarly Paper/Thesis Research Project)
7. Jackeline Liliana Gastelo Diaz Evaluation of Hydraulic Conductivity of Sodium Bentonite GCL Overlaps to Saline Solutions Graduated in December 2019
6. Siddharath Singh Characteristic Behavior Of Cross-Anisotropic Deposits Of Granular Materials Graduated in May 2019
5. Emre Akmaz Evaluation of Suitability of Using LWD, DCP, and Geogauge for Quality Control Methods for RAP Graduated in December 2018.
4. Tshreya Bhattarai Evaluation of Using Tactilus Cells to Estimate Vertical and Horizontal Stresses in GeoStructures Graduated in August 2017 New Job: (Engineer, ECS Engineering Consulting Services, Chantilly-VA)
Tanyu CV-26 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
3. Mariam Borga* Developing an Automated Methodology to Relate Hurricane Surge and Scour Damage of Building Foundations Graduated in May 2016 (Co-Advised with Dr. Celso Ferraira) New Job: (Engineer, ECS Engineering Consulting Services, Chantilly-VA) (See section II.A for associated publication)
2. Clayton Cook Effect of Particle Shape on Durability and Performance of Unbound Aggregate Base Graduated in May 2015 New Job: (Engineer, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort-KY) (See section II.A for associated publication)
1. Moustafa I. Awad Evaluation of Frictional Connection Strength of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Wall Faces Graduated in May 2012 New Job: (Engineer, Aldea Services LLC, Fredrick-MD) (See section II.A for associated publication)
I. International Summer Intern and Visiting Faculty - Advisor
3. F. Erol Guler, Ph.D. Visiting Faculty - Professor Civil Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul - Turkey
June 2017 thru June 2020.
2. Saad Ullah Visiting Graduate Student National University of Sciences and Technology Institute of Civil Engineering (NICE), Islamabad, Pakistan
Evaluation of Shear Strength of Silty Clay Samples Collected from Northern Virginia, July 2014
1. Bahadir Ali Yavuz, Ph.D. Visiting Faculty - Professor Geological Engineering Department, Dokuz Eylul University, Izmir - Turkey
June 2013 thru June 2014.
Tanyu CV-27 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
J. Teaching Activities Beyond GMU
American Society of Civil Engineers Short Course – Earth Retaining Structures Baltimore, MD October 16-17, 2014 Pittsburgh, PA November 7-8, 2013 Washington, D.C. June 6-7, 2013 (Above entries are also listed under section II.B.ii)
National Highway Institute (NHI) – A Federal Highway Administration Organization Lead Instructor for Earth Retaining Structures 2012 – 2018
Certified to be NHI Instructor (Instructor Number 0161) 2010
Invited to Become an Instructor to Teach NHI Course 2010 Design of Mechanically Stabilized Earth Walls and Reinforced Soil Slopes - Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
Invited to Become an Instructor to Teach NHI Course 2008 Earth Retaining Structures - Design of relevant wall types in LRFD
Invited to Become an Instructor to Teach NHI Course 2008 Micropile Design and Construction - Allowable stress design for foundation support and soil-structure analysis for slope stability
NHI Teaching Training Course 2007
VII. SERVICE
A. Professional
i. Professional Registration
Registered Chamber of Geological Engineer, Izmir, TURKEY, No. 6111
ii. Membership in Professional Organizations
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board (TRB) American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) International Geosynthetics Society, North America Chapter (IGS-NAGS) International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) Turkish Association of Geological Engineers (TJK) American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) – former member Society of American Military Engineers (SAME) – former member Association of Engineering and Environmental Geologist – former member
Tanyu CV-28 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
iii. Reviewing Activities as a Referee
Journal of Environmental Quality 2019 – current Wiley Publication (US) – Reviewer Journal of Waste Management 2019 – current Elsevier Publication (US) – Reviewer Journal of Transportation Geotechnics 2018 – current Elsevier Publication (US) – Reviewer Journal of Construction and Building Materials 2016 – current Elsevier Publication (US) – Reviewer International Journal of Geoengineering Case Histories 2015 – current ISSMGE Publication (UK) - Reviewer Journal of Cleaner Production 2015 – current Elsevier Publication (US) – Reviewer Journal of Neural Computing and Applications 2014 – current Springer Publication (UK) – Reviewer Journal of Air and Waste Management 2014 – current Environ Publications (US) – Reviewer Journal of Geotextiles and Geomembranes 2014 – current Elsevier Publication (US) – Reviewer Deep Foundation Institute (DFI) Journal 2014 – current Deep Foundation Institute (US) – Reviewer Bulletin of Engineering Geology and the Environment 2014 – current Springer Publication (UK) – Reviewer Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering 2014 – current American Society of Civil Engineers (US) – Reviewer Journal of Natural Hazards 2014 – current Springer Publication (UK) – Reviewer Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 2013 – current American Society of Civil Engineering (US) – Reviewer Journal of Geotechnical and Geological Engineering 2012 – current Springer Publication (UK) – Reviewer Journal of Geosynthetics International 2011 – current Institution of Civil Engineers (UK) – Reviewer Journal of ASTM International 2011 – current American Standard Testing and Materials (US) – Reviewer Journal of Geotechnical and Geonevironmental Engineering 2010 – current American Society of Civil Engineers (US) – Reviewer Journal of Transportation Research Record 2006 – current Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (US) – Reviewer International Journal of Pavement Engineering 2006 – 2012 Taylor and Francis Publishers (UK) – Reviewer
Tanyu CV-29 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Book Chapter Review 2013 Book Title: Principles and Practice of Ground Improvement Author: Jie Han Publisher: Wiley Publishing Company, U.S.; ISBN-10: 1118259912 Reviewed: Chapter 9 – In Situ Ground Improvement
iv. Roles in Professional Committees
Journal of Innovative Transportation Editorial Board Member 2020 – current
Geological and Geotechnical Engineering (GEGE) Journal International Journal Published by Springer since 1983 Editorial Board Member 2017 – current
National Research Council, Transportation Research Board (TRB) Member – Resource Conservation and Recovery Committee (ADC60) 2018 – current Chair - Geo-Environmental Processes Committee (AFP40) 2012 – 2018 Member - Geosynthetics Committee (AFS70) 2009 – 2018
American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Member - Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering Committee 2013 – current Member - Geoenvironmental Engineering Committee 2012 – current Member - Earth Retaining Structures Committee 2012 – current Member -Washington DC Capital Section 2011 – current
International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (ISSMGE) Member - Sustainability Technical Committee (TC307) 2013 – current
American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Illinois District 1 Committee 2007 – 2011 Former Member - Sustainability Sub-committee
v. Reviewing Activities for Agencies
American Society of Testing Materials (ASTM) – Review Panelist 2016 As a former recipient of the award, invited to participate in selecting 2016 Hogentogler Awardee
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) – Review Panelist Disasters Geologic Hazards Follow-Up Panel 2014 Disasters Geologic Hazards Panel 2012
National Science Foundation (NSF) – Review Panelist Civil, Mechanical, and Manufacturing Engineering Division 2018
Tanyu CV-30 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering Division 2015 Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering Division 2014 Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering Division 2011
vi. Reviewing/Organizing Activities for Conferences
TRB Summer Workshop 2019 Organizing Committee Chair (Host) Sustainable Resource Conservation and Recovery in Transportation Transportation Research Board, ADC60 Committee Event National Academy of Science, Washington, DC Event on July 14th – 16th, 2019.
GeoCongress 2019, Philadelphia, PA 2019 Technical Session Co-Chair: Earth Retaining Structures: Top/Down Const. American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) Conference on March 24th – 27th, 2019.
97th Annual Conference, Washington, DC 2018 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Technical Session Co-Chair: Recycled Materials and Chemical and Biological Processes in Infrastructure Technical Session Co-Chair: Use of Recycled Materials in Transportation Infrastructure
16th International Congress of Polymers in Concrete, Washington, DC 2017 Member of the International Scientific Committee Reduce, reuse, and recycle of polymer concrete and polymer composites Polymer aggregates in concrete structures including pavements Conference on April 29th – May 1st, 2018.
96th Annual Conference, Washington, DC 2017 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Technical Session Co-Chair: Advances in Cementitous Stabilization of Soils
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017, Orlando, FL 2016 Technical Session Co-Chair: Roadway Materials, Monitoring, and Testing
EuroGeo 2016, European Geosynthetics Congress, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA 2016 Technical Review Committee Member
Transportation Research Board Summer Workshop, Ashville, NC 2016 Resource Conservation and Recovery Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Organizing Committee Member: TRB AFP40 and ADC60 Committees
Tanyu CV-31 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
GeoAmericas 2016, Miami, FL 2015 3rd Pan-American Conference on Geosynthetics Technical Session Chair: Lab Testing-3 Technical Session Co-Chair: Trasnportation-1
Geo-Chicago 2016, Chicago, IL 2015 Sustainability, Energy, and the Geoenvironment Geo-Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Session Chair: A-15 Sustainability in Geotechnical Engineering
6th Geotechnical Symposium, Adana – Turkey 2015 Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber Technical Review Committee Member
93rd Annual Conference, Washington, DC 2014 Transportation Research Board of the National Academies Session Chair: 335- Geosynthetics Yesterday, Today, and in the Future (Selected as One of the Spotlight Sessions of the Conference) Session Chair: 214 – Advancements in Soil Improvement Using Biomediation Methods
39th Annual Conference on Deep Foundations, Atlanta, GA 2014 Deep Foundations Institute Technical Review Committee Member
Geo-Congress 2014, Atlanta, GA 2013 Geo-Characterization and Modeling for Sustainability Geo-Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Review Committee Member
5th Geotechnical Symposium, Adana – Turkey 2013 Turkish Civil Engineering Chamber Technical Review Committee Member
Geo-Congress 2013, San Diego, CA 2012 Stability and Performance of Slopes and Embankments III Geo-Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers Technical Review Committee Member
Geosynthetics 2013, Long Beach, CA 2012 Industrial Fabrics Association International Technical Review Committee Member
Geo-Congress 2012, Oakland, CA 2011 State of the Art and Practice in Geotechnical Engineering Geo-Institute, American Society of Civil Engineers
Tanyu CV-32 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Technical Review Committee Member
Transportation Research Board of National Academies 2012 - 2018 Annual Conferences, Washington, DC Technical Review Chair of all TRB AFP40 Committee Sessions
vii. Other Professional Service/Recognition
International Geosynthetics Society – North America 2017 Invited judge for technical case study competition
Service Appreciation Recognition 2016 For helping with overall conference organization GeoAmericas Conference International Geosynthetics Society (IGS) – North America Geosynthetics Society
Technical Excellence and Leadership Award 2013 Stability of Monroe Power Plant Ash Basin, Monroe-MI DTE Energy and Geosyntec Consultants (Above entry is also listed under II.D)
Zoning Board of Appeals – Member 2008 - 2011 Appointed by Mayor of Village of Forest Park-IL Volunteer community service
Pro Bono Publico Award 2009 American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) Awarded to Sustainability Subcommittee members for development of I-LAST (Description of I-LAST provided under II.A.vii.2)
Northeast/Great Lakes Region Exceptional Performer Award 2007 Geosyntec Consultants, Chicago, IL
B. University
i. Department
Chair of Search Committee for New Tenure-Track Faculty Spring 2018 P&T Committee for CEIE Fall 2017 Search Committee for New Tenure-Track Faculty Fall 2016 – Spring 2017 Qualifying Exam Committee Fall 2012 – current Undergraduate Senior Design Referee Fall 2011 – current Establishing Fully Operational Geotechnical Laboratory Fall 2013 Construction Support for CEIE/Geotechnical laboratory Spring 2013 Design Support for CEIE/Geotechnical laboratory Spring 2012 – Fall 2012 Graduate Student CEIE Seminars Fall 2011 – Spring 2012
Tanyu CV-33 TANYU, B. F. – Curriculum Vitae http://geotrans.vse.gmu.edu/home
Recording Departmental Meeting Minutes Fall 2011 – Spring 2012
ii. Volgenau School of Engineering (VSE)
Referee for VSE Jeffress Trust Grants Fall 2017 Department Representative on VSE Research Committee Fall 2014 – current Graduation Ceremony Marshall Fall 2013 – current Department Representative on VSE Academic Appeals Committee Fall 2012 – Fall 2014
iii. George Mason University
Judge for 3MT – Research Communication Competition March 2017 Office of Provost and Executive Vice President
Tanyu CV-34