A test site case study on the long-term behavior of geotextile tubes

Hyeong-Joo Kim; Myoung-Soo Won; Shamsher Sadiq; Tae-Woong Park; Hyeong-Soo Kim; Young-chul Park; Ji-hwi Gwak; Tae-Eon Kim; JianBin Wang; Jeong-Ho Choi

doi:10.1515/geo-2025-0839

Article Open Access

A test site case study on the long-term behavior of geotextile tubes

Hyeong-Joo Kim , Myoung-Soo Won , Shamsher Sadiq , Tae-Woong Park , Hyeong-Soo Kim , Young-chul Park , Ji-hwi Gwak , Tae-Eon Kim , JianBin Wang and Jeong-Ho Choi

Published/Copyright: August 21, 2025

Published by

Become an author with De Gruyter Brill

Submit Manuscript Author Information

From the journal Open Geosciences Volume 17 Issue 1

Abstract

This case study investigates the long-term seam performance over time for six geotextile tubes, which incorporated three distinct seam designs: longitudinal (L), transverse (T), and longitudinal with additional transverse reinforcement (L + R). These tubes, which differed in both diameter and length, were installed at the Saemangeum Test Bed site in South Korea. The observations focus on seam alignment, stitching behavior during filling, and over a decade (2013–2023) of environmental exposure. The study reveals that the T-type seam pattern ensures superior slurry distribution during the filling phase, preventing uneven tube profiles. However, for long-term stability and performance, the L + R seam pattern emerges as the most effective, benefiting from the reinforcement effect against tensile stress. The investigation further indicates the necessity for caution against foundation scour, which compromised the integrity of one tube in the study. This research contributes to the field by providing empirical evidence on the effectiveness of different seam patterns for geotextile tubes in marine environments, offering practical insights for their design and installation. By identifying the L + R seam pattern as the most viable for long-term durability, this study guides engineers in optimizing geotextile tube construction for environmental and coastal engineering projects.

Keywords: geotextile tube; transverse seam; longitudinal seam; transverse strip reinforcement; long term behavior; field test bed

1 Introduction

The geotextile tube, owing to its environmentally friendly and eco-adaptive nature, has gained widespread diverse applications, such as coastline protection [1,2], reclamation projects [3,4,5,6,7], dam and river embankment construction [8,9], and bridge enabling work [10,11].

Geotextile tubes, characterized by their tabular structure, serve as a vessel for dredged soil material, which is pumped in the form of a slurry to ensure effective distribution within the tube. In the existing body of literature, numerous analytical and empirical studies have delved into the geotextile tube’s water drainage characteristics and ability to retain filling material [12,13,14,15,16], tensile behavior of the membrane [17,18,19,20,21], and marine environment degradation [22]. Furthermore, a variety of case studies showcasing the implementation of geotextile tubes have been documented [2,3,7,8,23,24,25,26,27].

The construction of a geotextile tube involves stitching together geotextile sheets, a process known as seam formation. These seams can be oriented longitudinally or transversely, and the stitching itself can manifest as a single line or multiple lines. The integrity of the seam is crucial, as any rupture or opening during the filling stage or over the long term can result in material loss and an irregular shape of the geotextile tube. Given the unique eco-adaptive and climate-adaptive characteristics of geotextile tubes, a comprehensive understanding of seam patterns under various field conditions, including exposure to sunlight and marine environments, is imperative. It is equally important to observe the behavior of these seam patterns and validate over an extended period, such as 10 years. This critical aspect has not been investigated in existing research; therefore, this case study is warranted to bridge the existing gap in knowledge. The proposed case study aims to contribute by conducting empirical observations into the behavior of geotextile tubes constructed at the Test Bed (TB) site in Saemangeum, South Korea. The study will focus specifically on both seam types and injection methods of dredged soil during the filling stage and the long-term period encompassing a duration of 10 years. The availability of studied configurations and observations will enhance understanding of seam configurations, thereby improving engineering practices for the long-term use of geotextile tubes in diverse environmental conditions.

2 Overview of the Saemangeum project and the TB site

Saemangeum, located along the Yellow Sea in Jeollabuk-do Province, South Korea, has undergone a major transformation through the Saemangeum Project. This initiative includes the world’s longest seawall, reclaimed land, and economic development zones, aiming to position Saemangeum as the economic center of Northeast Asia.

The geotextile tube TB case study is situated within the expansive land reclamation project area of Saemangeum, South Korea (Figure 1). Here, geotextile tube TBs were constructed and exposed to marine environmental conditions for a period of 10 years.

Figure 1

Location of Saemangeum (sourced from Google Map).

3 Materials and methodology

3.1 Geotextile tube composite material properties

The geotextile tube was constructed from composite material, with an outer layer comprising woven polyester and an inner layer made of non-woven polypropylene. The apparent opening size and the coefficient of permeability were 145 μm and 5.8 × 10⁻²m/s, respectively. Furthermore, in the tensile test performed on composite geotextile material, observed tensile strengths are 177.5 kN/m (with 12.9% elongation) in the weft direction and 185.5 kN/m (with 13.8% elongation) in the wrap direction (Figure 2).

Figure 2

Tensile strength test of geotextile tube composite material.

3.2 Dredged soil properties

The particle size distribution curve, developed from the soil gradation tests (hydrometer and sieve analysis) of the dredged soil used as filling material, is presented in Figure 3. The dredged soil exhibits properties such as a 15.9% natural water content, a specific gravity of 2.687, non-plastic behavior, 25% particle passage through the No. 200 sieve, and a Unified Soil Classification System designation of silty sand.

Figure 3

Gradation analysis test of dredged soil used as injection slurry in filling geotextile tube.

3.3 Description of seam patterns and configurations

A geotextile tube is created by stitching together geotextile fabric sheets; this stitching is referred to as a seam. The stitching pattern can be longitudinal and transverse. In this study, three seam patterns for producing geotextile tubes are implemented in the field TBs, as explained in Section 3.4. The purpose is to observe the long-term performance of the seam over a 10-year period (referred to as long term here). The seam, wherever referenced, is created by sewing together individual sheets using two rows of stitches, with each row containing six stitching lines. The industry-standard stitch type 401 double-thread lock stitch, with a tension of more than 60 N, was used for stitching the seam.

Seam pattern 1, referred to as the longitudinal seam configuration, is illustrated in Figure 4(a) and (b). In this configuration, the geotextile tube is formed using individual sheets with dimensions length (L) and width (W), as depicted in the plan view in Figure 4(a). These sheets are connected by a longitudinal seam consisting of two rows, six-line stitching. The seam is meticulously created with an inter-stitching spacing (L1) and stitching row width (L2) of 1 and 5 cm, respectively, as demonstrated in cross-section details A. The spacing between the rows of stitching (L3) is set at 10 cm. After joining individual sheets through the seam, both ends are closed using two rows of six-line stitching to form a complete tube. For the injection of slurry, two filling ports are positioned as indicated in Figure 4(b); the location of these depends on the dimension of the geotextile tube.

Figure 4

Seam pattern 1: longitudinal direction seam, showing geo tube assembly fabrication configuration: (a) plan view and (b) sectional elevation and cross-sectional detail.

Seam Pattern 2, illustrated in Figure 5(a) and (b), is formed by joining individual sheets in the transverse direction. In this assembly fabrication configuration, the geotextile tube is created using individual transverse sheets as shown in the plan view in Figure 5(a). These sheets are connected through a transverse seam, employing two-row, six-line stitching. The seam is created with an inter-stitching spacing (L1) and stitching row width (L2) of 1 and 5 cm, respectively, as demonstrated in cross-section details A. The spacing between the rows of stitching (L3) is set at 10 cm. Subsequently, both ends of all transverse sheets are joined using a longitudinal seam, as shown in Figure 5(b) with cross-section details B; the stitching spacing remains the same as in section A. Following the joining of individual sheets through the seam, both ends are closed using two-row, six-line stitching to complete the tube.

Figure 5

Seam pattern 2: transverse direction seam, showing geo tube assembly fabrication configuration: (a) plan view and (b) sectional elevation and cross-sectional details.

The fabrication process for the geotextile tube using seam pattern 3 is detailed in Figure 6(a)–(c). The individual composite geotextile tube sheets are interconnected using a longitudinal seam, similar to pattern 1. However, in this pattern, an additional transverse reinforcement strip sheet is incorporated and stitched using a single row of 6-line stitching, as illustrated in the plan view in Figure 6(a). The transverse strip sheet, made from a similar composite material, has width (w) 15 cm and length that depends on the required theoretical diameter of the geotextile tube. These strips are stitched at intervals (s) of 4–6 m. The cross-sectional details of the transverse reinforcement strip are presented in Figure 6(c), cross-section B. The inter-stitching spacing (L1) and stitching row width (L2) are maintained at 1 and 5 cm, respectively, for both cross-sections A and B. Finally, both ends of the tubes are securely sealed using two-row, six-line stitching to achieve a completed tube.

Figure 6

Seam pattern 3: longitudinal direction seam + transverse strip reinforcement, showing geo tube assembly fabrication configuration. (a) Plan view. (b) Sectional elevation. (c) Cross-sectional details.

3.4 Injection module types

The geotextile tubes are filled with slurry material through a filling port, commonly known as the injection module. Two types of injection modules, I type and T type, are implemented during the filling process in the field TBs, as illustrated in Figure 7(a) and (b), respectively.

Figure 7

The filling port configuration for slurry injection. (a) I-type. (b) T-type.

These filling port modules are constructed using stainless steel tube material and consist of a delivery hose (diameter 50 cm) with inlet and outlet holes (diameter 40 cm) for the slurry. The T-type injection module features two holes that evenly distribute the slurry in a lateral direction, whereas the I type has only one outlet hole for slurry in the vertical direction.

3.5 Overview of geotextile tube field TBs

The aforementioned seam patterns and injection modules were applied in the construction of six TBs in the field located at Saemangeum, as shown in the plan (Figure 8). Details regarding the assembly, including seam patterns, provision of shear key, and injection modules for each TB, are summarized in Table 1, and a brief overview is presented below.

Figure 8

Field test bed plan of geotextile tubes.

Table 1

Summary of the planned geotextile tube Test Bed (TB) construction configurations and conditions at site

			Classification
Description			TB-1	TB-2	TB-3	TB-4	TB-5	TB-6
Tube assembly fabrication configuration	Seam pattern		3(L + R)	2(T)	2(T)	1(L)	1(L)	3(L + R)
	Length of each sheet, L (m)		10.6	16	9.72	25.6	10.6	25.6
	Width of each sheet, W (m)		4	4	4	6	3.5	6
	Reinforcement strip length, l (m)		9.6	—	—	—	—	15.9
	Reinforcement strip width, w (m)		0.15	—	—	—	—	0.15
	Strip spacing, s (m)		3	—	—	—	—	3
Dredged soil injection module			I	I	T	I	T	T
Provision of shear key at bottom			—	—	—	✓	—	—
Staged construction			—	—	✓	—	—	—
Test bed status		Underwater	—	—	—	—	✓	—
Test bed status		On land	✓	✓	✓	✓	—	✓
Tube length (m)			10	25	10	25	10	25
Tube theoretical diameter (m)			3	5	3	5	3	5

TB-1 was a geotextile tube with a theoretical diameter of 3 m and a length of 10 m. It was assembled using seam pattern 3 (see Figure 6), which involved a longitudinal seam with a transverse reinforcement strip and an I-type injection module. Three longitudinal sheets were joined using a longitudinal seam that comprises two rows, each having six-line stitching. The length of each longitudinal sheet (L) was 10.6 m, the width of each sheet (W) was 4 m, the transverse reinforcement strip length (l) measures 9.6 m, the strip width (w) was 0.15 m, and the strip spacing (s) was set at 3 m. The stitching pattern for the transverse reinforcement strip involved a single row of 6-line stitching.

TB-2 was a geotextile tube designed with a theoretical diameter of 5 m and a length of 25 m. Its assembly, illustrated in Figure 5, employs seam pattern 2, which involves a transverse direction seam and an I-type injection module. The transverse direction sheets were connected using a transverse seam consisting of two rows, each featuring six-line stitching. The dimensions of each transverse sheet include a length (L) of 16 m and a width (W) of 4 m. Both ends of all transverse sheets were stitched together using a longitudinal seam that comprised two rows, each with six-line stitching.

TB-3 construction followed a staged construction approach, essential for embankment construction where geotextile tubes are utilized on a slope. The tube was made with a theoretical diameter of 3 m and a length of 10 m. Its assembly, illustrated in Figure 5, employs seam pattern 2, which involves a transverse direction seam and a T-type injection module. The transverse direction sheets were connected using a transverse seam consisting of two rows, each featuring six-line stitching. The dimensions of each transverse sheet include a length (L) of 9.72 m and a width (W) of 4 m. Both ends of all transverse sheets were stitched together using a longitudinal seam that comprises two rows, each with 6-line stitching.

TB-4 was constructed on the ground, featuring an excavated longitudinal shear key at the bottom center of the geotextile tube. The tube was designed with a theoretical diameter of 5 m and a length of 25 m. It was assembled using seam pattern 1 (see Figure 4), which involves a longitudinal seam and an I-type injection module. Three longitudinal sheets were joined using a longitudinal seam that comprises two rows, each having six-line stitching. The length of each longitudinal sheet (L) was 25.6 m, and the width of each sheet (W) was 6 m.

TB-5 was constructed under water. The TB-4 tube was made with a theoretical diameter of 3 m and a length of 10 m. It was assembled using seam pattern 1 (see Figure 4), which involves a longitudinal seam and a T-type injection module. Three longitudinal sheets were joined using a longitudinal seam that comprised two rows, each having six-line stitching. The length of each longitudinal sheet (L) was 10.6 m, and the width of each sheet (W) was 3.5 m.

TB-6 was constructed as a geotextile tube with a theoretical diameter of 5 m and a length of 25 m. The assembly utilized seam pattern 3, as illustrated in Figure 6, involving a longitudinal seam with a transverse reinforcement strip and a T-type injection module. The assembly process involved joining three longitudinal sheets with a longitudinal seam, consisting of two rows, each featuring 6-line stitching. The dimensions of each longitudinal sheet were as follows: length (L) was 25.6 m, width (W) was 6 m, the transverse reinforcement strip length (l) was 15.9 m, strip width (w) was 0.15 m, and the strip spacing (s) was set at 3 m. The stitching technique employed for the transverse reinforcement strip consists of a single row of six-line stitching.

4 Results and discussion

The performance of the seam pattern was assessed during both the filling process and the day following its completion in 2013. Furthermore, the long-term impact on the seam performance of the geotextile tubes was observed a decade after completion in 2023.

A satellite image illustrating the overall status of the TBs after completion in 2013 is presented in Figure 9. The final heights of the geotextile tubes were observed on the day following the filling process in 2013, as detailed in Figure 10 and Table 2. Pictures taken on this day for each geotextile tube, labeled TB-1 to TB-6, are provided in Figure 11(a)–(f).

Figure 9

Satellite image showing test bed site construction completion stage (2013).

Figure 10

Measured heights of test beds a day after the filling. (a) TB-1. (b) TB-2. (c) TB-3. (d) TB-4. (e) TB-5. (f) TB-6.

Table 2

Summary of the observations on Geotextile tube test bed

			Classification
Description			TB-1	TB-2	TB-3	TB-4	TB-5	TB-6
Seam pattern			3(L + R)	2(T)	2(T)	1(L)	1(L)	3(L + R)
Tube theoretical diameter (m)			3	5	3	5	3	5
Observations	Day after filling, 2013	Final height (m)	1.43	1.37	1.60	1.53	1.63	1.86
		Seam	—	—	—	One row of seam was broken
		Alignment	—	Non-uniform	—	—	—	—
		Remarks	—	I-type injection resulted in irregular slurry deposition	—	During filling tube was unfolded at shear key and seam broke out	Installed underwater	—
		Remarks	—	I-type injection resulted in irregular slurry deposition	—	Shear key construction is not effective	Installed underwater	—
	After 10-year period, 2023	Seam	—	—		Another seam was broken	—	—
		Alignment	—	Non-uniform		Non-uniform	—	—
		Remarks	Band reinforcement effect at the transverse reinforcement strip	Foundation settlement due to water wave scouring during reclamation, resulting in non-uniform alignment		Further opening of seam that broke out during filling	Subsequent reclamation, with the tube now situated beneath reclaimed soil with satisfactory performance of the seam under these conditions	One of best tube formed
		Remarks				Subsequent seam breakage due to water wave scouring during reclamation, resulting in filling volume loss		Band reinforcement effect at the transverse reinforcement strip

Figure 11

Achieved profiles of geotextile tube at completion of filling/construction stage (2013). (a) Test bed 1. (b) Test bed 2. (c) Test bed 3. (d) Test bed 4. (e) Test bed 5. (f) Test bed 6.

4.1 Observations during filling

TB-1, assembled using seam pattern type 3, which involves a longitudinal seam with transverse strip reinforcement, the seam performed well during filling. A uniform profile of the geotextile tube was achieved the day after filling, with a measured final height and width of 1.43 and 4.36 m, respectively.

For TB-2, assembled using seam pattern type 2 with a transverse direction seam and I-type injection module, the seam demonstrated good performance during filling. However, the utilization of the I-type injection module led to a non-uniform profile of the geotextile tube, as observed the day after filling, with a measured final height and width of 1.367 and 7.5 m, respectively. TB-3, assembled with seam pattern type 2 featuring a transverse seam, was installed in a staged construction, as illustrated in Figure 10(c), to emulate the construction of an embankment on a slope. During this staged construction, TB-3 achieved an even profile, and the seam demonstrated commendable performance throughout the injection filling stage. The measured final height and width were recorded at 1.6 and 4.34 m, respectively.

During the planning of the TB configurations, it was assumed that the presence of a shear key at the bottom of the geotextile tube could aid in achieving longitudinal alignment and enhance the overall tube stability. Consequently, TB-4 was installed on the excavated shear key at the bottom, as illustrated in Figure 12. Initially, during the slurry injection filling, the tube followed the perimeter of the excavated shear key, as shown in Figure 12(c). However, as the slurry injection was increased to achieve 40% of the tube diameter condition, the geotextile tube started unfolding, as seen in Figure 12(d), resulting in the rupture of one row of the longitudinal seam, as depicted in Figure 12(e). It can be inferred that the use of shear key is ineffective for L-seam configuration due to unequal stress distribution that occurs during the unfolding of the tube in the filling stage. This leads to the excessive tension on a certain section of the seam, ultimately causing the stitches to fail. However, further studies are warranted to investigate the effect of shear key considering the T-seam and L + R-seam configurations. Additionally, the width of 1.3 m, matching the excavator bucket size with a depth of 0.5 m for longitudinal shear key, was smaller than the unfolded width (7.41 m) of the geotextile tube after final filling. It is likely that an improved shear key size (width and depth) could enhance performance; this aspect requires further investigation. The measured final heights and widths were recorded at 1.21–1.645 and 7.41 m, respectively.

Figure 12

Various stages of TB-4 construction with shear key resulting in broken longitudinal seam (2013). (a) Excavation of shear key. (b) Placement of geotextile tube over the shear key. (c) During filling the view of geotextile inside the shear key. (d) After sedimentation unfolding of geotextile tube inside shear key. (e) During filling broken stitches of longitudinal seam on left side of geotextile tube.

The TB-5, assembled with seam pattern type 1 featuring a longitudinal seam, was installed in a semi-submerged condition, and the seam performed well during T-type injection filling. The day after filling, an even profile was achieved, as shown in Figure 10(e), with a measured final height and width of 1.63 and 4.3 m, respectively.

TB-6, assembled using seam pattern type 3, featuring a longitudinal seam with transverse strip reinforcement and filled with T-type injection module, was observed to be one of the best-formed tubes. The seam pattern exhibited excellent performance during filling, and an even profile was achieved the day after completion (see Figure 10(f)), with a measured final height and width of 1.863 and 7.4 m, respectively.

The type of seam pattern and the slurry injection module have a significant influence on the profile shape of the geotextile tube. Notably, it was observed that the utilization of T-type injection modules in TB-3, TB-5, and TB-6 yielded an even and uniform tube profile, effectively preventing the formation of craters. In contrast, TB-2 exhibited an uneven profile the day after filling, attributed to the use of the I-type injection module. This unevenness was observed due to stress concentration in the tube resulting from irregular slurry deposition. Moreover, the inclusion of the transverse reinforcement strip in TB-1 and TB-6 offers circumferential confinement precisely where the maximum slurry tensile pressure is applied during filling.

4.2 Long-term observations

The long-term performance of the geotextile tube in terms of the seam and alignment is evaluated by observing the current status of the TBs in 2023 after 10-year period of construction. The satellite view of the TBs current situation in 2023 is shown in Figure 13. Pictures taken after 10 years for each geotextile tube, labeled TB-1 to TB-6, are provided in Figure 14(a)–(f). It is noteworthy to mention that all geotextile tubes have proven to be environmentally friendly and adaptable to vegetation. Additionally, there has been no observed rupture in the composite geotextile material, even after a period of 10 years.

Figure 13

Satellite image showing test bed site status after 10 years.

Figure 14

Profile view of geotextile tube after 10 years. (a) TB-1 & TB-3. (b) TB-1 & TB-3 soil side. (c) TB-4. (d and e) TB-5. (f) TB-6.

The staged geotextile tubes’ view of TB-1 and TB-3 is presented in Figure 14. Figure 15(b) and (c) illustrates the preservation of the 6-line stitching in both longitudinal and transverse seams, along with the transverse reinforcement strip, indicating their structural integrity in long term. Notably, TB-1 exhibits a reinforcement band effect along the transverse strip. Additionally, the preservation of seam integrity demonstrates the long-term durability of the staged geotextile tube in the construction of embankments, especially at specific slopes.

Figure 15

Test bed 1 and 3 current status (2023). (a) View of staged geotextile tube. (b) View of TB-1 longitudinal seam and transverse direction strip. (c) A view of TB-3 transverse direction seam.

As highlighted in the earlier section, the I-type slurry filling of TB-2 resulted in an irregular deposition of the slurry, leading to a non-uniform tube configuration after the filling process. Over an extended period, this tube was subjected to multiple cycles of sea water waves on one side of the geotextile tube, as illustrated in Figure 16(a). Consequently, the soil beneath the foundation scoured, triggering further settlement (Figure 16(b)) and causing a deviation from uniform alignment (Figure 16(c)). It is noteworthy that despite the uneven distribution of tensile forces due to these challenges, the seam of the tube remained intact (see Figure 16(d)). Remarkably, not a single stitch was broken, underscoring the importance of the two-row, six-line stitching in ensuring the long-term structural resilience of the geotextile tube.

Figure 16

Test bed 2 status observed during wave water action in 2017 and current status in 2023. (a) A view showing water facing side of the geotextile tube (2017). (b) Geotextile tube settlement due to scouring of foundation (2017). (c) Non-uniform longitudinal alignment view due to water wave action (2023). (d) View showing transverse direction seam (2023).

TB-4, installed with a shear key at the bottom, experienced a seam rupture during the filling process when the geotextile tube unfolded. Subsequently, another longitudinal seam failure occurred on one side of TB-4, where it faced multiple cycles of water waves, as depicted in Figure 17(b). The scouring of the foundation beneath the geotextile tube led to an additional longitudinal seam rupture. Notably, vegetation has taken root in both of the broken seams, as evidenced in Figure 17(c). Over an extended period, due to the rupture of seams on both sides, the loss of filling material from these occurrences resulted in a non-uniform profile, illustrated in Figure 17(d).

Figure 17

Test bed 4 status observed during wave water action in 2017 and current status in 2023. (a) A view showing sea water wave action and scouring on right side of tube (2017). (b) Scouring of foundation, resulting in broken longitudinal seam on right side of tube (2017). (c) Broken seams view & non-uniform alignment due to foundation scouring. (d) A view showing alignment (2023).

TB-5, installed in a semi-submerged condition, was discovered beneath the reclamation soil, as depicted in Figure 18(a). The two-row, six-line stitching exhibited remarkable durability, remaining intact despite the challenging conditions. This resilience was evident in Figure 18(b), where the stitching pattern remained unaffected even when subjected to construction activities, including the passage of an excavator. This observation underscores the robustness of the composite material and seam pattern, showcasing their integrity in a buried marine environment over a 10-year period.

Figure 18

Current status of test bed 5 (2023). (a) View showing testbed inside the reclamation soil. (b) A view of longitudinal seam.

An alignment view of the current status of TB-6 is presented in Figure 19(a), revealing a uniform longitudinal and vertical profile. Furthermore, the stitching of the longitudinal seam and the transverse reinforcement strip is found to be intact, displaying excellent integrity, as illustrated in Figure 19(b) and (c), respectively. As observed in TB-1, TB-6, assembled using seam pattern 3, also exhibits a reinforcement band effect along the transverse strip. This observation emphasizes the importance of the reinforcement strip, providing additional resistance to tensile forces along the circumference – the primary plane in the geotextile tube.

Figure 19

Current status of test bed 6 (2023). (a) An alignment view. (b) View of longitudinal seam. (c) View of transverse reinforcement strip stitching.

TB-6 stands out as one of the best-performing geotextile tubes formed during filling and over a 10-year period. Consequently, it can be inferred that the seam pattern 3, coupled with the T-type injection module, proves to be the most suitable in comparison to all presented cases. Considering the band reinforcement effect observed in the transverse strip, a slight modification is suggested for seam pattern 3 (L + R seam). It is recommended to increase the width of the reinforcement transverse strip from 15 to 30 cm, accompanied by the implementation of the two-row, six-line stitching (Figure 20) for future engineering practices.

Figure 20

Recommended pattern: longitudinal direction seam + transverse strip reinforcement, showing geo tube assembly fabrication configuration. (a) Plan view. (b) Sectional elevation. (c) Cross-sectional details.

Although the TB-6 (L + R seam) outperformed all other studied configurations, TB-2 and TB-4 were more exposed to wave action and erosion compared to TB-6 due to varying environmental conditions. Additionally, TB-4 seam ruptured during the unfolding at the shear key in the filling stage. Therefore, it is recommended to further investigate the performance of different seam types (T, L, and L + R) under consistent conditions, specifically when filled with a T-type injection module and subjected to the combined effects of wave action and foundation erosion. This will help establish guidelines for optimizing the geotextile tube’s resistance to erosion over extended durations.

The seam type for TB-1 was L + R, similar to TB-6, which was identified as the optimal seam type. In TB-1, we stacked TB-3, and a long-term band reinforcement effect was observed. Since TB-1 and TB-6 share the same L + R seam type, the extended evaluation period showed that the combination of TB-3 with TB-1 performed well under the given stress conditions. Therefore, stacking TB-3 with TB-1 does not alter the conclusion regarding the optimal seam type. It can be inferred that the L + R-seam type is also effective for the stacked geotextile tube construction.

5 Conclusions

This case study explores the performance of composite geotextile tubes assembled using different seam patterns and implemented in the Saemangeum reclamation area, South Korea. The following conclusions are drawn from the observations:

During the slurry filling stage, the T-type injection module demonstrated greater effectiveness, ensuring even slurry deposition in the lateral direction and preventing crater formation, resulting in a uniform profile. The two-row, six-line stitching exhibited reliable performance in both longitudinal and transverse directions for all TBs, except TB-4, where one row failed due to the unfolding of the geotextile tube at the shear key. This suggests that the current shear key installation design was ineffective, and further investigation into shear key design and seam type configurations is required.
A geotextile tube composed of a composite of woven and non-woven geotextiles exposed to sunlight and seawater for 10 years functioned normally, with no rupture observed during the extended duration.
Geotextile tubes assembled using seam pattern type 2 (transverse direction seam) demonstrated more stable behavior than seam pattern type 1 (longitudinally seamed) in terms of longitudinal and vertical profiles. However, seam pattern type 3 (longitudinal seam with transverse reinforcement strip) was identified as the optimal configuration, attributed to the observed band reinforcement effect along the circumference – the major plane subjected to tensile stresses of the filled material. Therefore, a longitudinal seam with a transverse reinforcement strip is recommended for long-term geotextile tube construction.
Through long-term observation of two-stage geotextile tube test construction, it was confirmed that geotextile tubes can be effectively applied to slope reinforcement, maintaining integrity, alignment, and vertical profile.
The foundation scouring of the geotextile tube led to the rupture of one of the longitudinal seams in TB-4, causing a gradual loss of slurry volume over time and resulting in a non-uniform geotextile profile. Therefore, caution is strongly recommended when constructing geotextile tubes on the coast to mitigate the risk of foundation scour.

This case study, being the first of its kind, provides valuable insights for the engineering community, serving as a foundation for future enhancements in understanding the long-term geotextile tube seam configurations’ behavior subjected to the field conditions.

tel: +82 63 469 4753

Funding information: This research was supported by the Basic Science Research Program through the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) funded by the Ministry of Education (RS-2021-NR060134), Brain Korea 21 FOUR).
Author contributions: Hyeong-Joo Kim: project administration, funding acquisition, and conceptualization. Myoung-Soo Won: writing – review and editing, supervision, formal analysis, and conceptualization. Shamsher Sadiq: writing – original draft, visualization, investigation, and formal analysis. Tae-Woong Park: test bed preparation and visualization. Hyeong-Soo Kim: test bed preparation and visualization. Young-Chul Park: test bed preparation and visualization. Ji-Hwi Gwak: test bed preparation and visualization. Tae-Eon Kim: test bed preparation and visualization. JianBin Wang: test bed preparation and visualization. Jeong-Ho Choi: test bed preparation and visualization.
Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

References

[1] Chu J, Yan S, Li W. Innovative methods for dike construction–An overview. Geotext Geomembr 2012;30:35–42.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.01.008Search in Google Scholar

[2] Saathoff F, Oumeraci H, Restall S. Australian and German experiences on the use of geotextile containers. Geotext Geomembr 2007;25:251–63.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.009Search in Google Scholar

[3] Lee E, Douglas R. Geotextile tubes as submerged dykes for shoreline management in Malaysia. Geotext Geomembr 2012;30:8–15.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2011.01.003Search in Google Scholar

[4] Shin E, Oh Y. Coastal erosion prevention by geotextile tube technology. Geotext Geomembr 2007;25:264–77.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.003Search in Google Scholar

[5] Alvarez E, Rubio R, Ricalde H. Beach restoration with geotextile tubes as submerged breakwaters in Yucatan, Mexico. Geotext Geomembr 2007;25:233–41.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2007.02.005Search in Google Scholar

[6] Corbella S, Stretch DD. Geotextile sand filled containers as coastal defence: South African experience. Geotext Geomembr 2012;35:120–30.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2012.09.004Search in Google Scholar

[7] Restall SJ, Jackson L, Heerten G, Hornsey W. Case studies showing the growth and development of geotextile sand containers: an Australian perspective. Geotext Geomembr 2002;20:321–42.10.1016/S0266-1144(02)00030-4Search in Google Scholar

[8] Yang Y, Wei Z, Cao G, Yang Y, Wang H, Zhuang S, et al. A case study on utilizing geotextile tubes for tailings dams construction in China. Geotext Geomembr 2019;47:187–92.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2018.12.007Search in Google Scholar

[9] Das UK. A case study on performance of Jia Bharali River Bank protection measure using geotextile bags. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 2016;2:1–9.10.1007/s40891-016-0052-8Search in Google Scholar

[10] Yee T, Zengerink E, Choi J. Geotextile tube application for Incheon Bridge project, Korea. Proceedings of the CEDA dredging days 2007 conference, Rotterdam, Netherlands. 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[11] Cho S, Jeon B, Park S, Yoon H. Geotextile tube application as the cofferdam at the foreshore with large tidal range for Incheon bridge project. Geosynthetics in Civil and Environmental Engineering: Geosynthetics Asia 2008 Proceedings of the 4th Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics in Shanghai, China. Springer; 2009. p. 591–6.10.1007/978-3-540-69313-0_110Search in Google Scholar

[12] Moo-Young HK, Gaffney DA, Mo X. Testing procedures to assess the viability of dewatering with geotextile tubes. Geotext Geomembr 2002;20:289–303.10.1016/S0266-1144(02)00028-6Search in Google Scholar

[13] Koerner GR, Koerner RM. Geotextile tube assessment using a hanging bag test. Geotext Geomembr 2006;24:129–37.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2005.02.006Search in Google Scholar

[14] Recio J, Oumeraci H. Hydraulic permeability of structures made of geotextile sand containers: Laboratory tests and conceptual model. Geotext Geomembr 2008;26:473–87.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2008.05.006Search in Google Scholar

[15] Cantré S, Saathoff F. Design parameters for geosynthetic dewatering tubes derived from pressure filtration tests. Geosynth Int 2011;18:90–103.10.1680/gein.2011.18.3.90Search in Google Scholar

[16] Weggel JR, Dortch J, Gaffney D. Analysis of fluid discharge from a hanging geotextile bag. Geotext Geomembr 2011;29:65–73.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.06.011Search in Google Scholar

[17] Malík J. Some problems connected with 2D modeling of geosynthetic tubes. Nonlinear Anal: Real World Appl. 2009;10:810–23.10.1016/j.nonrwa.2007.11.009Search in Google Scholar

[18] Leshchinsky D, Leshchinsky O, Ling HI, Gilbert PA. Geosynthetic tubes for confining pressurized slurry: some design aspects. J Geotech Eng 1996;122:682–90.10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9410(1996)122:8(682)Search in Google Scholar

[19] Plaut RH, Suherman S. Two-dimensional analysis of geosynthetic tubes. Acta Mech 1998;129:207–18.10.1007/BF01176746Search in Google Scholar

[20] Kim D-J, Kim S-C, Lee J-S, Byun Y-H, Kang B-Y. Internal strength characterization of geotextile tube using miniature cone. Ocean Eng 2022;266:113157.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.113157Search in Google Scholar

[21] Son DG, Byun Y-H. Shear strength characteristics of two-layer geotextile reinforced with flowable fill. Constr Build Mater 2023;367:130207.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130207Search in Google Scholar

[22] Carneiro JR, Morais M, de Lurdes Lopes M. Degradation of polypropylene geotextiles with different chemical stabilisations in marine environments. Constr Build Mater 2018;165:877–86.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.01.067Search in Google Scholar

[23] Man X-L, Shu Y-M, Yu C-L, Hao X-H, Li S-P. Effect of cyclic wave loading on scouring stability of geotube dams. Ocean Eng 2018;152:1–5.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.01.040Search in Google Scholar

[24] Zhu Y, Xie L, Su T-C. Flow characteristics on the leeside of a geotextile mattress with floating plate. Ocean Eng 2022;265:112624.10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.112624Search in Google Scholar

[25] Kim H-J, Won M-S, Sadiq S, Park TW, Kim HS, Jeong YS, et al. Introduction to a novel geotextile tube connection construction method: A case study of test site and field application. Geotext Geomembr. 2024;52(4):626–34.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.03.005Search in Google Scholar

[26] Kim H-J, Won M-S, Sadiq S, Park TW, Kim HS, Ryu YT, et al. Observations from opening of a novel geotextile tube connection in field test site. Geotext Geomembr 2025;53:311–7.10.1016/j.geotexmem.2024.10.001Search in Google Scholar

[27] Won M-S, Kim HJ, Shamshe S, Gwak JH. A study on the long-term tensile strength properties of the geotextile tubes. J Mar Sci Eng. 2025;13(5):985.10.3390/jmse13050985Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2024-07-03

Revised: 2024-12-10

Accepted: 2025-01-22

Published Online: 2025-08-21

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

Articles in the same Issue

https://doi.org/10.1515/geo-2025-0839

Keywords for this article

geotextile tube; transverse seam; longitudinal seam; transverse strip reinforcement; long term behavior; field test bed

Creative Commons

BY 4.0