Letters to the editor

Page 1 of 1 (13 results total)

  • Authors agree with letter writer regarding spark testing

    Response to comment from Dr. [Ian] Peggs regarding spark testing on page 8 in the October/November 2009 issue of Geosynthetics, which was in response to “Geosynthetics in the construction of a Southern California subsurface biofilter cell system,” published in the August/September 2009 issue.

    February 1, 2010

  • Concerns regarding spark testing

    While the August/September article on subsurface biofilters was very interesting in demonstrating the wide range of geosynthetics used, I have concerns with the description of spark testing.

    October 7, 2009

  • Comments and a question for the GMA Techline doctor

    I am writing to respond to the April/May issue of Geosynthetics, specifically to the GMA Techline Q & A.

    August 1, 2009

  • Geosynthetics-2009 conference serves as great introduction to geosynthetics

    The Geosynthetics-2009 conference in Salt Lake City was my introduction to the geosynthetics industry.

    June 1, 2009

  • Landfill work in India causes concern

    We [were] doing a geomembrane installation and welding job for a customer in India whose corporate slogan proudly reads, “Protecting the Future.”

    April 1, 2009

  • Still further comment about the impact of water

    I read with interest the exchange between Gordon Stevens with Maccaferri and Michael Adams with FHWA about the use of woven geotextiles for soil reinforcement in MSE structures.

    February 1, 2009

  • Thanks for the info on GRS technology

    The article by Michael Adams in the April/May 2008 issue of Geosynthetics, “The GRS bridges of Defiance County,” discusses an “easy as 1-2-3” solution for simple bridge construction.

    October 1, 2008

  • Further comment on the impacts of water

    The article by Dov Leshchinskey in the April/May 2008 issue of Geosynthetics raises a number of interesting points on the impact of water, which all designers should consider in their wall designs.

    August 1, 2008

  • Transmissivity article unnecessarily confusing

    Everything he (the author) says is correct, but I find the explanation more complicated and confusing than it needs to be for a design practitioner wishing to specify a material.

    June 1, 2008

  • Taking issue with recommendations

    The “Kam Kotia Project Case Study” in the February/March 2008 issue of Geosynthetics magazine starts off with interesting descriptions of the project design, geosynthetic testing, and construction.

    April 1, 2008

  • Additional comment on Part 1 of SRW series

    I just finished reading the article (“Challenges in building SRWs … “) published in Geosynthetics magazine.

    February 1, 2008

  • Comment on Part 1 of SRW series

    I am very happy to see the efforts to educate owners using SRWs.

    February 1, 2008

  • RE: “The Bridge” & “Butterflies”

    We can only thank God after narrowly surviving such incidents (“The Bridge” October/November 2007).

    February 1, 2008
  • Page 1 of 1

  • Geosynthetics and the construction market

    Sponsored by IFAI Market Research

    The use of geosynthetics-geotextiles, geomembranes, geosynthetics drainage composites, and geogrids-in construction for applications such as erosion control, road construction, soil stabilization, bridges, and liquid containment is growing.

    There are approximately 50 companies in the U.S. and Canada making these types of products. In 2008, the use of geosynthetics grew at 5% in the U.S. and Canada to about 850 million square yards.

    There is great optimism in the U.S. regarding the market for geosynthetics even during these times of economic turmoil. The recently passed economic stimulus plan includes the single largest new investment ever for repairing the U.S. infrastructure since the creation of the federal highway systems (”interstates”) in the 1950s and ’60s.

    Normally, construction projects take years of planning before they are actually implemented but there is a popular term now used called “shovel ready.” Shovel ready means the actual construction projects are ready to start as soon as funding is allocated. So, the effects of the stimulus plan funding will be immediate for our industry.

    This information is taken from the 2009 IFAI State of the Industry Report.