Actes du colloque

Proceedings of the 18

International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013

- Our profession, with respect to the above mentioned point,

can help to protect our cultural heritage, especially historical

buildings, mainly with respect to the foundation ageing or

bedrock deterioration.

- Geotechnical Engineering is falling under the limited group

of professions which to the high extent are able to react not only

on classical construction problems but also on new society

demands, namely with respect to:

- Protection against natural hazards – floods, landslides,

earthquakes….

- Energy savings – especially with respect to

Geothermal energy, e.g. energy piles or diaphragm walls;

- Raw materials savings – with high potential for waste

and recycled material utilization, e.g. ash, slag,

construction and demolition waste etc.

- Protection of greenfields – as GE is playing significant

role in the field of “Construction on brownfields”;

- Environmental protection in general – especially when

solving the problem of waste deposition or problems

associated with old ecological burdens.

On the other hand our profession is connected with

relatively high risk, which is much higher than for other

structures as we can test only an extremely low part of the

ground or constructed geotechnical structure (earth

structures), let us say one millionth, even when the

expected non homogeneity is very high.

Very often the

quality checking of a geotechnical structure is going

indirectly with limited possibility to control properties

which are having dominant role on the structure safety.

However this risk is not only connected with definition of

geological model, geotechnical model and with numerical

model, but also with the selection of the most appropriate

method of construction technology which is able to react

on unexpected changes of ground conditions. Main

problem here is that society demands only solutions which

are able to

guarantee 100 % safety. This condition can not

be fulfilled -

as in principle we are counting with

acceptable risk – we are accepting some probability of

failures – as it is basic approach of construction design

(limit state approach). Brief conclusion to this point - risk

acceptance and sharing will have a positive impact on the

prestige of the geotechnical engineering profession.

The general discussion to these points started already

and some positive examples can be mentioned, as:

ISSMGE Bulletin publishes many interesting

examples of practical problems, similarly as the

International Journal of Geoengineering Case

Histories (IJGCH);

TV Discovery Science Channel under the

headline "Building the Biggest" is presenting many

specific projects where our profession is playing very

important role, e.g. Busan-Geoje Project, Oresund

Bridge and tunnel, tunnel under Amsterdam railway

station, tunnel in Singapore under existing metro

station, foundation of bridge over narrow sea in

Greece with very strong seismic attack etc.

- „Geotechnical – geological way” areal was opened in

Vienna, describing e.g. activities of Prof. K. Terzaghi

or Dr. O.K. Frohlich and affiliated the name of the

specific way to them.

The Geo-Impuls program started in the Netherlands,

in which some 30 large clients, contractors,

engineering consultants, universities and institutes do

participate. The target of the Geo-Impuls program is

halving geotechnical failures by 2015 – with expected

savings around 500 Mil. EUR. But there are another

positive examples (e.g. from Sweden) of good

cooperation of 3 main partners (client- owner-investor

+ designer + contractor) who are sharing the risk with

the main aim to decrease potential risk and to

decrease bidding price.

However to be more successful at these 2 points we have to

combine our forces. Namely on

Information level - two positive examples were

mentioned already (ISSMGE Bulletin and IJGCH

journal). With respect to the questionnaire to the

European societies – most of them positively

evaluated ISSMGE webinars, but up to now they are

reserved with respect to the other ISSMGE changes as

are new web pages and GeoWord network as these

activities are still at the opening phase. Nevertheless

also the intention of this report should be to help to

improve the information level.

Professional level – namely on the level of the sister

learned societies as IAEG and ISRM or on the level of

the sister practical societies as ITA/ITES –

International Tunnelling Association, IGS –

International Geosynthetic Society, EFFC – European

Federation of Foundation Contractors – in Europe).

This cooperation is very good at the national level.

German Geotechnical Society can be mentioned as

positive example, which has sub-committees working

in close contact with these sister societies. Therefore

some international activities are arranged together

with these sister societies. Again few examples:

ITA/AITES Congress in Finland, Helsinki, 2011 or

EuroGeo – geosynthetics, in Spain, Valencia, 2012.

However the cooperation at the international level still

needs some improvement.

c) Academic and research level - with the main aim to

achieve higher recognition of geo-engineered subjects

at the university level or to achieve higher recognition

of our research activities. All our achievements which

are published in different journals, proceedings, books

should be evaluated and registered on some official

lists (e.g. on the list of Thomson Reuters) or we can

create the new one much more close to our profession.

d) National level – not only on the level of our profession

but also on the level of National Civil Engineering

Institutes,

different

government

department,

information media and policy makers. Activities on

our professional level will be described further as are

most important part of our activities.

For Europe a specific problem is connected with common

European codes. Eurocode 7 – “Geotechnical design” is playing

there most important role and is subject of many discussions.

ERTC (European Regional Technical Committee) No.10 –

Evaluation of Eurocode 7 – UK + Ireland – Andrew Bond,

Trevor Orr – did in this field many positive steps. Very

interesting was workshop in Athens during European

conference, where also problem of numerical methods applied

for the geotechnical design according to EC 7 was discussed.

Nevertheless it is recommended for each national society to

have some representative on the level of CEN/TC 250/SC7.

Many national representatives are also working at many

different “Evolution groups” of SC 7 the aim of which is to find

some common approach to the new version of EC 7 which is

expected to be prepared roughly in 2019.

Geotechnical education is discussed under the umbrella of

ERTC 16 – Education and Training – Romania (Greece) –

Iacint Manoliu (Marina Pantazidou). The main aim is to define

basic demands for different levels of study according to the

Bologna agreement. Just to help to increase student (and later

on engineer) mobility, to be sure that students from each

country will know basic principles on which other activity can

Volume 6 - Page 272