D. Jean Hutchinson, CGS VP Technical | vptech@cgs.ca
Andrea Lougheed, CGS Member | alougheed@bgcengineering.ca
Gholamreza (Reza) Saghaee, CGS Member | reza.saghaee@aecom.com
Andrew Drevininkas, CGS Member & Corporate Sponsor | andrew.drevininkas@ttc.ca
Subscription Rates:
CGS Members: Paper and electronic issues are included with membership. Electronic issues are available on the CGS member website. Non-CGS Members: Visit www.karma-link.ca/shop
Printed in Canada
Canadian Geotechnique is published by: Karma-Link Management Services Ltd. 2167 166 Street, Surrey, BC V3Z 0V6 info@karma-link.ca • www.karma-link.ca
CGS Membership: Contact admin@cgs.ca
Advertising: Contact Max Manuel at max@karma-link.ca
the
Submission of Feature Articles and News: Unsolicited feature articles and news items of interest to CGS members are encouraged for consideration. Submissions should be sent to the respective Editor, or Managing Editor, at least three
the
Dear readers, This issue of Canadian Geotechnique includes a Special Section in collaboration with our friends and close affiliate, the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). They have provided several articles about case studies that are very
pertinent to our members. Longtime CGS member and Chair of the recent 78th Canadian Geotechnical Conference, Kent Bannister is an active member of the GBA Board of Directors and would be happy to explain the importance of CGS members learning more about what the GBA offers and how to get involved. Joel Carson, GBA Executive Director, is available to discuss membership. An MOU was signed between the CGS and GBA in 2023, to formalize a partnership between our societies.
The CGS is now 1,500+ members strong with a good cross section of members, equally representing academics, practitioners, and industry. The practitioners will appreciate this issue and academics may find some teachable information for our future members.
Save the Date - Upcoming Conferences
GeoQuebec 2026
September 14-16, 2026 – Quebec City, QC www.geoquebec2026.ca
Geohazards 9
June 1-3, 2026 – Edmonton, AB www.geohazards9.ca
I want to extend our very special thanks and gratitude to Nick Beier, who has stepped away from Canadian Geotechnique. Nick was involved from the beginning, first as CGS News Editor and moving on to Features Editor in place of Doug VanDine. We will miss Nick’s excellent work and collaboration with our CG Publishing Team. Thank you, Nick!
Our next issue, Winter 2025, will feature our recap of the annual Canadian Geotechnical Conference, GeoManitoba 2025 – if you missed the conference, you won’t want to miss the articles!
Lisa and the Karma-Link Team
CPT ’27: May 12-14, 2027 – Vancouver, BC www.cpt27.org
GeoOttawa 2027 September 19-22, 2027
Lisa Reny, Publisher
As summer draws to a close, preparations are well underway for the 78th Canadian Geotechnical Conference (GeoManitoba 2025), to be held at the RBC Convention Centre in Winnipeg, Manitoba, from September 21–24, 2025. This year’s conference is a joint event with the Canadian Permafrost Association, taking place alongside the 9th Canadian Permafrost Conference. I am looking forward to gathering in Manitoba and meeting as many of you as possible. Organizing a conference of this scale requires an extraordinary commitment from volunteers, and this year’s main conference event is being led by Kent Bannister and his dedicated team. A full list of the organizing volunteers is available at www.geomanitoba2025.ca
Immediately preceding GeoManitoba, the CGS Young Professionals (YP) Conference will be held in Wasagaming, Manitoba. First launched in 2004 in Quebec City (I was there!), the YP Conference provides an excellent introduction to the CGS community for emerging geoprofessionals. Nearly fifty delegates are expected this year, with a program that includes tours, presentations, and workshops. A huge thank you to Jack Park, Jenna Roadley, and the entire team. If you are interested in finding out more about this conference and meeting the organizers, you can find more information at www.cgsypc2025.ca
As a longtime CGS member, it is great to see so many young people involved in our society and being active contributors to the society.
The theme of GeoManitoba 2025 is “Stronger Together”, while the YP Conference will focus on “Collective Impact.” Both themes underscore the increasing importance of collaboration in geotechnical practice. In keeping with this spirit, this edition of Canadian Geotechnique highlights the partnership between the Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS) and the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). The GBA has been active for over 50 years in “serving geotechnical, environmental, and other geoprofessionals by giving them proven tools to achieve business success by confronting risk and optimizing performance.” The GBA website (www.geoprofessional.org) highlights the many resources that are available to GBA members that focus on the business side of the geoprofession. Our partnership with the GBA through the CGS Professional Practice Committee (chaired by Stoorer Boone) is the reason behind several of the featured articles exploring GBA’s work in educating and supporting geoprofessionals across North America. I can assure you that our Professional Practice Committee is committed to strengthening this connection in the years ahead.
Since January, our new Executive has been actively advancing the Society’s priorities under the leadership of: Jean Hutchinson, VP Technical; Daniel Bertrand, VP Finance; Marie-Lin Breard Lanoix, VP Communications and Member Services; Jennifer Day, Division and Committee Representative; Lilianne LandryParé, Section Representative; and Chelsey Guenther, Young Professional Representative. At the upcoming Board of Directors (BOD) meeting in Winnipeg, we will provide updates on these initiatives and report on the Society’s financial health. The BOD will also help shape priorities for the CGS moving forward. Our Divisions, Committees, and Sections across Canada have been continually
active over the past year, and their work will be highlighted at the BOD meeting. A full account of these activities will be included in the CGS Annual Report, presented at the BOD meeting, and published on our website. If you have not yet participated in a Section, Division, or Committee, I encourage you to consider getting involved—our Society thrives thanks to the dedication of our volunteers. The National Office of the CGS under the leadership of our new Executive Director Ian Moore and the team at Karma-Link, continues to explore ways to improve efficiency and enhance services for our members. While we recognize there is always room for improvement, we remain committed to making meaningful progress for the benefit of the Society.
One final note on this nice summer day, our CGS membership has exceeded 1,500 people for the first time ever! As a longtime CGS member, it is great to see so many young people involved in our society and being active contributors to the society. Doug VanDine, a former CGS President, has previously provided a historical perspective of membership numbers for the CGS. In the 1980s and into the 90s, CGS membership rose steadily, peaking at 1,458 members in 1995. Membership numbers have fluctuated since that time, with the year 2020 “throwing a wrench” into our membership numbers. It is my hope that many of our new young CGS members maintain this involvement in our great society and take this year’s conference themes of “Together” and “Collective” to heart and continue to make our society successful for years to come.
I wish you an enjoyable end to the summer and look forward to seeing you in Manitoba this September.
Lake 2025-26 CGS President
Craig
Craig Lake, 2025-2026 President of the Canadian Geotechnical Society
Alors que l’été touche à sa fin, les préparatifs de la 78e conférence canadienne de géotechnique (GéoManitoba 2025), qui se tiendra au RBC Convention Centre, à Winnipeg, au Manitoba, du 21 au 24 septembre 2025, vont bon train. La conférence de cette année est un événement organisé conjointement avec l’Association canadienne du pergélisol, qui se déroulera parallèlement à la 9e conférence canadienne du pergélisol. J’ai hâte que nous soyons réunis au Manitoba et de rencontrer le plus grand nombre de personnes possible. L’organisation d’une conférence de cette envergure nécessite un engagement extraordinaire de bénévoles. Kent Bannister et son équipe dévouée dirigent la conférence principale de cette année. Vous trouverez la liste complète des bénévoles organisateurs sur le site www. geomanitoba2025.ca/fr.
Immédiatement avant GéoManitoba, la Conférence des jeunes professionnels (JP) de la SCG se tiendra à Wasagaming, au Manitoba. Lancée pour la première fois en 2004 à Québec (j’y étais!), la Conférence des JP offre aux nouveaux professionnels en géotechnique une excellente introduction à la communauté de la SCG. Cette année, on s’attend à recevoir près de 50 délégués, lesquels pourront profiter d’un programme
comprenant des visites, des présentations et des ateliers. Un grand merci à Jack Park, à Jenna Roadley et à toute l’équipe. Si vous souhaitez en savoir plus sur cette conférence et rencontrer les organisateurs, vous trouverez de plus amples renseignements sur le site www.cgsypc2025.ca
Le thème de GéoManitoba 2025 est « Plus forts ensemble », tandis que celui de la Conférence des JP est « Impact collectif ». Les deux thèmes mettent l’accent sur l’importance croissante de la collaboration dans la pratique géotechnique. Fidèle à cet esprit, cette édition de Géotechnique canadienne souligne le partenariat entre la Société canadienne de géotechnique (SCG) et la Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA). Active depuis plus de 50 ans, la GBA est « au service des professionnels de la géotechnique et de l’environnement en leur fournissant des outils éprouvés qui les aideront à atteindre le succès en affaires en faisant face aux risques et en optimisant leur performance ». Le site Web de la GBA (www.geoprofessional.org) offre à ses membres de nombreuses ressources qui se concentrent sur l’aspect commercial des professions géotechniques. Notre partenariat avec la GBA par l’entremise du Comité sur les pratiques professionnelles de la SCG (présidé par Storer Boone) est à la source de plusieurs articles de fond explorant le travail de la GBA pour éduquer et soutenir les professionnels de la géotechnique partout en Amérique du Nord. Je peux vous assurer que notre Comité sur les pratiques professionnelles est déterminé à renforcer ce lien dans les années à venir.
Depuis janvier, notre nouvelle équipe de direction fait activement progresser les priorités de la Société. Ses membres sont les suivants : Jean Hutchinson, viceprésidente technique; Daniel Bertrand, vice-président aux finances; Marie-Lin Bréard Lanoix, vice-présidente aux communications et aux services aux membres; Jennifer Day, représentante des sections et des divisions; Lilianne LandryParé, représentante des sections; Chelsey Guenther, représentante des jeunes professionnels. Lors de la prochaine réunion du conseil d’administration (CA) à Winnipeg, nous ferons le point sur ces initiatives et ferons
rapport sur la santé financière de la Société. Le CA aidera également à déterminer les priorités de la SCG à l’avenir. Nos divisions, comités et sections partout au Canada ont été continuellement actifs au cours de la dernière année, et on soulignera leur travail lors de la réunion du CA. Un compte-rendu complet de ces activités sera inclus dans le rapport annuel de la SCG, présenté à la réunion du CA et publié sur notre site Web. Si vous n’avez pas encore participé aux activités d’une section, d’une division ou d’un comité, je vous encourage à envisager de le faire. En effet, c’est grâce au dévouement de nos bénévoles que notre Société peut prospérer. Le bureau national de la SCG, sous la direction de notre nouveau directeur exécutif Ian Moore et de l’équipe de Karma-Link, continue d’explorer des façons d’améliorer l’efficacité et les services offerts à nos membres. Nous savons bien qu’il est possible de faire mieux et c’est la raison pour laquelle nous sommes déterminés à ce que notre Société continue de réaliser des progrès significatifs.
Une dernière note en cette belle journée d’été : pour la toute première fois, l’effectif de la SCG a dépassé les 1 500 membres! En tant que membre de longue date de la SCG, il est formidable de voir autant de jeunes participer aux activités de notre société et y contribuer activement. Doug Vandine, ancien président de la SCG, a déjà donné un aperçu historique du nombre de membres de la SCG. Au cours des années 80 et 90, le nombre de membres a régulièrement augmenté, atteignant un sommet de 1 458 personnes en 1995. Depuis ce temps, le nombre de membres a fluctué, particulièrement en 2020 lorsque la pandémie nous a mis un bâton dans les roues. J’espère que bon nombre des nouveaux jeunes membres de la SCG continueront à participer à nos activités et s’inspireront des thèmes de la conférence de cette année (« Plus forts ensemble » et « Impact collectif ») pour contribuer au succès de notre Société dans les années à venir.
Je vous souhaite une agréable fin d’été et je suis impatient de vous voir au Manitoba en septembre.
Craig Lake 2025-26 SCG président
Craig Lake, Président de la SCG 2025-2026
2025 Fall Cross Canada Lecture Tour: Paul Dittrich
The CGS Fall Cross Canada Lecture Tour will feature Paul Dittrich of WSP. Paul’s tour will take place between October 13 and October 31, 2025. Stay tuned for details from your Local Section!
Paul Dittrich, PhD, PEng, FEIC is a Geotechnical Engineer and Senior Technical Director of WSP with 30 years of experience on a wide variety of projects in the transportation, infrastructure, and mining sectors within Canada and internationally. His main areas of expertise include site characterization, foundation design, settlement analysis, stability of slopes, embankments and excavations, specialized geotechnical analysis/modelling, geotechnical instrumentation and monitoring, and ground improvement. Paul is approved as a Designated Principal Contact for MTO’s
High Complexity foundation engineering services. Paul has been an active member of the Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS) during his career holding leadership positions at both the local and national levels and has served on the organizing committee of several CGS conferences. He has contributed to the geotechnical profession by being a sessional instructor or adjunct professor at the University of Toronto, Queen’s University, McMaster University, Humber College and University of Waterloo, as well as teaching a continuing education course on geotechnical engineering at EPIC. Paul is currently a member of the CSA Group S6 Canadian Highway Bridge Design Code (CHBDC) – Technical Sub-Committee (TSC) working on the updates to the 2025 version of the Code. He is the author or co-author of more than 30 technical publications.
Geohazards 9 –Abstracts Due October 29
The 9th installment of the Canadian Conference on Geotechnique and Natural Hazards, Geohazards 9, will take place at the University of Alberta June 1-3, 2026. Since the inception for the series in 1992, applied earth science practitioners from across Canada have gathered to share insights on our collective understand of how the earth’s processes and populations interact and how we continue to maintain this balance.
As new technologies continue to evolve we’ve been able to look back and learn about past events to understand how to better manage the associated risks in the future. Not only have we utilized technology, but the science community has become more purposeful with our engagements with our first peoples
to harness their knowledge and practices for managing hazards and living with the earth’s processes. Whether it be new technologies or traditional knowledge, Canadians collectively will continue to be challenged to understand how earth processes and hazards act in a changing climate in order to best understand how to adapt and increase societal resilience.
This series of gatherings of the Canadian applied earth science community are an important check in to assess where we are and how to best advance the state of practice in Canada. We look forward to having you join us in Edmonton in June 2026.
Corey Froese and Renato Macciotta Conference Co-Chairs
Tournée de conférences transcanadienne de
l’automne 2025 : Paul Dittrich
Paul Dittrich (WSP) présentera la Tournée de conférences transcanadienne de l’automne de la SCG. Cette tournée aura lieu entre le 13 et le 31 octobre 2025. Restez à l’affût de plus amples renseignements transmis par votre section locale!
Paul Dittrich, Ph. D., ing., FICI, est ingénieur en géotechnique et directeur technique principal chez WSP. Il compte 30 ans d’expérience dans une vaste gamme de projets dans les secteurs du transport, des infrastructures et de l’exploitation minière au Canada et à l’étranger. Ses principaux domaines d’expertise comprennent la caractérisation des sites, la conception des fondations, l’analyse des tassements, la stabilité des pentes, des remblais et des excavations, l’analyse et la modélisation géotechniques spécialisées, l’instrumentation et la surveillance géotechniques et l’amélioration des sols. M. Dittrich est approuvé en tant que personne responsable désignée pour les services d’ingénierie des fondations
très complexes au ministère des Transports de l’Ontario. Au cours de sa carrière, il a été un membre actif de la Société canadienne de géotechnique (SCG) où il a occupé des postes de direction aux niveaux local et national, en plus de siéger au comité organisateur de plusieurs conférences de la SCG. Il a contribué à la profession géotechnique en tant que chargé de cours à temps partiel et professeur adjoint à l’Université de Toronto, à l’Université Queen’s, à l’Université McMaster, au Collège Humber et à l’Université de Waterloo, ainsi qu’en donnant un cours de formation continue en géotechnique au Centre d’Innovations en Programmes Éducatifs (CIPE). Il est actuellement membre du sous-comité technique (SCT) du Groupe CSA S6 du Code canadien sur le calcul des ponts routiers qui travaille à la mise à jour de la version 2025 du Code. Il est l’auteur ou le coauteur de plus de 30 publications techniques.
Geohazards 9 – La date limite pour soumettre des résumés est le 29 octobre
La 9e édition de la Conférence canadienne sur la géotechnique et les risques naturels (« Geohazards 9 ») aura lieu à l’Université de l’Alberta du 1er au 3 juin 2026. Depuis le lancement de cette série de conférences en 1992, des praticiens des sciences de la terre appliquées de partout au Canada se réunissent pour parler de leurs réflexions sur notre compréhension collective de l’interaction entre les processus naturels de la Terre et les populations, ainsi que sur la façon dont nous continuons à maintenir cet équilibre.
À mesure que les nouvelles technologies continuent d’évoluer, nous pouvons jeter un regard sur les événements passés afin d’améliorer à l’avenir notre gestion des risques qui y sont associés. Non seulement nous avons utilisé la technologie, mais la communauté scientifique est plus résolue que jamais à interagir avec les Premières Nations afin de tirer parti de leurs connaissances et pratiques pour gérer les risques et
vivre en harmonie avec les processus naturels de la Terre. Qu’il s’agisse de nouvelles technologies ou de connaissances traditionnelles, les Canadiens et Canadiennes continueront collectivement d’être mis au défi de comprendre l’interaction des processus naturels de la Terre et des géorisques dans un climat en pleine mutation afin de mieux savoir comment s’adapter et accroître la résilience de la société.
Cette série de rassemblements de la communauté canadienne des sciences de la terre appliquées est une occasion idéale pour évaluer où nous en sommes et pour déterminer comment nous pouvons faire progresser au mieux l’état de la pratique au Canada. Nous sommes impatients de vous accueillir à Edmonton en juin 2026.
Corey Froese et Renato Macciotta Coprésidents de la conférence
Le programme technique de la conférence Géorisques 9 comportera deux jours de sessions techniques qui comprendront des conférences prononcées par des invités d’honneur, des présentations orales et une présentation par affiches. On invite les auteurs à soumettre des résumés d’un maximum de 300 mots d’ici le 29 octobre 2025.
FROM THE CGS VAULTS
The following is a sampling of what was happening in the Canadian geotechnical community 10, 25, 50, and 75 years ago. If you know of possible items for future issues, please send them to info@karma-link.ca
IN 2015 … 10 YEARS AGO
Lionel (Peck) Peckover, a pioneer in geotechnical engineering in Canada, passed away in 2015 in his 93rd year. He graduated as a civil engineer from the University of Toronto in 1944, and was encouraged by Robert Legget, one of his professors, to pursue studies in soil mechanics at Harvard University under Arthur Casagrande. He graduated with an S.M. (Master’s) degree in 1947. After working with Legget at the National Research Council’s Division of Building Research for several years, Peckover joined the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority in 1953 in a senior capacity where he supervised design and construction of the foundations of locks, bridges, and other structures, as well as its channels and dykes. Once the Seaway was opened in 1959, he joined Canadian National Railways and became their first Engineer of Geotechnical Services with responsibilities across Canada, with particular emphasis on design of railway roadbeds on soft ground, improvement of ballast, reduction of frost heave, and treatment of unstable rock slopes. In 1976, Peckover joined the Canac Consulting Group (CN’s consulting arm), where he evaluated the terrain of a proposed high-speed rail line from Montreal to Windsor (yet to be built). He retired in 1984. Peckover attended the 1st Canadian Geotechnical Society Conference in Ottawa in 1947 and was involved with the CGS throughout his career. He published over 40 technical papers in the Canadian Geotechnical Journal, the Journal of the American Railway Engineering Association, and elsewhere.
IN 2000… 25 YEARS AGO
In October 2000, the 2nd GeoHazards Workshop (GeoHazards 2) was held in Montreal, in association with the 53rd Canadian Geotechnical Conference. The workshop marked the closing of the United Nations’ “International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction (IDNDR 19902000)”. Its purpose was to “bring together experts and excellent practitioners with interests in geotechnique and natural hazards, to synthesize Canadian achievements related to natural hazard reduction, to take stock of future research, and to devise appropriate guidelines and strategies to reduce future impacts of natural disasters…” The workshop was organized by the CGS’s Engineering Geology Division in association with the Geological Survey of Canada, Emergency Preparedness Canada, and Technical Committee 11 (Landslides) of the International Society of Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering. Twelve invited Canadian speakers presented reports and their views on flooding, earthquakes, snow avalanches, tsunamis, and landslides. The workshop proceedings were edited by Rejean Couture and Steve Evans, both with the Geological Survey of Canada at the time. The proceedings of GeoHazards 2, as are all eight of the GeoHazards Workshops held to date (1992, 2000, 2003, 2008, 2011, 2014, 2018, and 2022) are available on the CGS Geohazards Committee webpage https://www.cgs.ca/geohazards_committee.php. GeoHazards 9 will be held in Edmonton, June 1–3, 2026.
IN 1975 … 50 YEARS AGO
The 28th Canadian Geotechnical Conference was held in Montreal at the Mount Royal Hotel, November 8–10, 1975. The theme was Genie Géotechnique en Milieu Urbain (Geotechnical Engineering in the Urban Environment). Raymond Yong from McGill University was the chair of the Local Organizing Committee. The 335-page proceedings consisted of 20 papers, grouped into four sessions: Urban Geology Mapping; Tunnelling and Rock Mechanics; Soil Mechanics and FoundationsApplications in the Urban Environment; and Slopes and ExcavationsApplications in the Urban Environment. Approximately half of the 39 contributing authors were from Quebec, and the other half were from across the country. Raymond Yong was born in Singapore and did his graduate work at McGill University (MEng 1958 and PhD in 1960). He joined the McGill faculty in 1959 and was promoted to Full Professor in 1965. From 1976 until he retired in 1995, Yong served as the Director of McGill’s Centre of Geotechnical Research. During his career his focus was on the properties of natural soils, how these materials formed, and how they responded to their environment. He and his students were among the early researchers in geoenvironmental engineering. He was also instrumental in the development of a post-graduate Diploma program at McGill in Waste Generation and Control. He has over 60 patents, published over 400 technical papers, four textbooks and edited nine other books. In 1985, Raymond Yong was the recipient of a prestigious Killiam Prize.
In 1950 … 75 YEARS AGO
In the spring of 1950, the US Dakota states and southern Manitoba were significantly affected by flooding of the Red River. In Winnipeg, it was the fourth largest flood recorded since 1826, the largest since 1861. The flood caused significant damage to the city, which at that time had a population of approximately 300,000. One-eighth of the city was inundated. Approximately one-third of the residents had to be evacuated, the largest evacuation in Canadian history up until that time. Flood conditions continued for 51 days. Approximately 10,000 homes were destroyed, and 5,000 buildings were damaged. Fortunately, only one death was attributed to the flood. It is estimated that the flood resulted in approximately $125 million in damages (equivalent to approximately $1 billion today). The 1950 flood prompted the construction of the Red River Floodway to the east of the city. The 47-km floodway was constructed between 1962 and 1968, at a cost of $63 million. The volume of excavated material removed was second only to that of the Panama Canal. The 1960s floodway protected Winnipeg from the larger 1997 flood; however, starting in 2005, Canada and Manitoba spent an additional $625 million to expand the original Red River Floodway to protect Winnipeg from the one-in-700 year flood. Besides the 1997 flood, the original and expanded floodways have successfully protected the city from several subsequent major floods, saving billions of dollars.
OGEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION –INTRODUCTION TO SPECIAL SECTION
n behalf of the Professional Practice Committee of the CGS, we are excited about this special section of Canadian Geotechnique, focused on the efforts by the CGS and the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) to build solid practice foundations for our engineering and geosciences community. Since 1945, the CGS has helped our members grow and highlight the technical strengths of our researchers and practitioners. The GBA, formerly the ASFE, has helped consulting geoprofessionals since 1969 with navigating the complex environment of our day-to-day work by providing risk management, business optimization, and leadership development resources. In 2023, CGS and GBA formalized a partnership and since then, our two organizations have collaborated on mutually beneficial efforts supporting our success and elevating our profession. The four articles in this issue are designed to grab your interest and illustrate the value GBA provides for improving your bottom line and the quality of your work.
An article by Steve Wendland, P.E., P.G., BCGE, spotlights the value of learning from others’ mistakes and near misses when translating technical skills to practical projects, difficult or non-existent contracts, litigious clients, and awful schedules within financially squeezed assignments. I’ve enjoyed and learned from GBA Case Histories for far longer than I’d care to admit. Over 115 case histories compiled by GBA represent a unique spirit of sharing horror stories and the resulting wisdom, so that others need not tread upon quicksand. Dig in!
Ours is a dirty business (in the best of ways!). From the draw of emerging information technology fields in the 1990s to AI in the
2020s, encouraging people to pursue a career in geotechnical engineering or the geosciences can be an uphill battle. Finding, retaining, and rewarding talent requires constant vigilance to keep your business strong. Stewart Osgood, P.E., F.GBA, and Jeff Jaros dive into employee retention and engagement, delivering messages that are sometimes difficult to hear in business. Their article reminds me of a former colleague asked to undertake a retention study 30+ years ago – and was then fired because he wasn’t able to deliver what the recipient wanted to hear… (he went on to successfully lead another company, by the way).
It's not a job, it’s a career. Right? How does one inspire life-long learners? Grasping something technically interesting and new is innate to engineers and scientists but not so the dull work of running a business. Wrong? Craig Fischer and Chuck Gregory, P.E., F.GBA, share their experiences of helping their colleagues get interested and focused on building better consultants. They show that constructive engagement with the resources of GBA can spur and sustain career development, enhance project management, pay dividends to the bottom line, and support active employee growth, tying into Osgood and Jaros’ article.
Finally, June Jewell hits on a topic that gets under everyone’s skin – commoditization of our services. June presents tips to help educate our clients against bottom-dollar pricing behaviour. We all understand that our services often cost less than 1% of the project budget but if done poorly, can cost the client gravely. A bad job is worse than no job. A bad client can be the end of a business. Low-bid engineering or geoscience + low-bid construction = high
risk! Following her path, our fields can rightly be seen as providing advice and wisdom (not just another cut and paste report) toward successfully undertaking some of the most challenging aspects of their projects.
Thanks to a team of passionate CGS members for collaborating with GBA for many months to prepare for this special section. It emphasizes that we are all better when we collaborate on a common goal, to elevate geoprofessional value.
Happy reading!
Storer Boone, Ph.D., P.Eng., P.E., is the owner of and principal consultant for Ground Rules Engineering Inc., founded in 2021 after 27 years at Golder and 5 years with others in the USA. He currently provides assistance to legal teams for cases related to geotechnical engineering and related standards of care, pre-bid geotechnical risk reviews and claims assistance to major tunnelling and underground construction contractors, and peer review services for other engineering firms and municipalities. As Chair of the Professional Practice Committee for CGS, he has been working with a core group of other committee members and others to better link the GBA and CGS and elevate our professional practice. Dr. Boone also serves as an Adjunct Professor at Western University and on the Professional Engineers Ontario Complaints Committee.
Storer Boone, CGS Professional Practice Committee Chair
GBA CASE HISTORIES: A GREAT TOOL FOR
Steve Wendland
It is often said that learning from your failures is the best education. That is only partially correct. In fact, the best way to learn is from the mistakes and failures of others. For geoprofessionals, learning from others’ difficulties has been simplified. The Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) has published 117 case histories that provide concise, well-written, real-world summaries of lessons learned from failures and challenges over the past 50+ years of geoprofessional consulting.
All the possible mistakes and failures that we might have to deal with have already occurred sometime somewhere on someone else’s project or in another business, and those same failures will occur again. “What has been done will be done again. There is nothing new under the sun.” (Ecclesiastes 1:9). This includes the activities of geoprofessionals, the mistakes they make, the problems they encounter on projects, and the difficult business situations they struggle with. Let’s learn from those previous failures so that when they occur again, it won’t be in our project or business.
GBA has mastered the art of learning from challenges and problems experienced by other GBA member firms. For decades, GBA has been facilitating this learning by publishing case histories. Each case history summarizes the business operations or project work that had problems with technical analyses, project management, client relations, contracts, or business aspects. Many are based on project work by environmental professionals, geotechnical engineers, construction observation and materials testing providers (CoMET), and many other geoprofessionals, including office work and field work. Other case histories focus on concerns with human resources, legal affairs, business management, contracts, client relations, and communications. Litigation resulting from these mistakes is discussed in many of the case histories. Some deal with the fact that we are sometimes blamed for problems that are not of our making; legal claims against our firms may be based more on money than on truth, accuracy, or fairness.
IMPROVING GEOPROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
GBA
has published more than 115 case histories containing lessons learned from failures and challenges over the past 50+ years of geoprofessional consulting.
Let’s learn from those previous failures so that when they occur again, it won’t be in our project or business.
The documents provide a summary of the challenges, how the problems were resolved, and the lessons learned. Each case history is sanitized so that the parties and places involved are not identified and any other identifying information is not included.
These case histories are available as a PDF download from the GBA website at no charge to all employees of GBA member firms. GBA publishes more case histories every year. A digest of all the case histories is also available. The GBA Case History Digest has a oneparagraph summary and a list of the lessons learned for each one. The digest document is available in the GBA resource library and can be easily searched for keywords if you want to find case histories that address a particular topic.
GBA’s sharing of these case histories is unique within trade organizations. People in all professions make mistakes, misinterpret data, or make over-optimistic analyses, but at GBA we geoprofessionals share what we’ve learned
from those problems. Other professions don’t do this. The 2009 book Checklist Manifesto: How to Get Things Right by Atul Gawande puts it this way:
“… think about what happens in most lines of professional work when a major failure occurs. To begin with, we rarely investigate our failures. Not in medicine, not in teaching, not in the legal profession, not in the financial world, not in virtually any other kind of work where the mistakes do not turn up on cable news. A single type of error can affect thousands, but because it usually only touches one person at a time, we tend not to search as hard for explanations.
… getting the word out is far from assured … One study in medicine, for example, examined the aftermath of nine different major treatment discoveries … On average, the study reported, it took doctors seventeen years to adopt the new
treatments. … The reason for the delay is not usually laziness or unwillingness. The reason is more often that the necessary knowledge has not been translated into a simple, usable, and systematic form.
The same can be said in numerous other fields. We don’t study routine failures in teaching, in law, in government programs, in the financial industry, or elsewhere. We don’t look for the patterns of our recurrent mistakes or devise and refine the potential solutions for them. But we could…”
Mr. Gawande is correct, most professionals don’t discuss their failures or what they learned from them, but GBA member firms do. GBA is unique among trade organizations in that our member firms frequently share our challenges and solutions with each other. We share to help all of us learn, to manage all our risks, and to improve all our business operations. The greatest example of this sharing is GBA’s large collection of case histories.
I’ve discussed with my friends who are medical doctors how they share lessons learned from failures in their work. Surprisingly, the most common response I have received is that they don’t. “Medical doctors are human. We make mistakes like everyone else; we don’t need to publicly proclaim those errors.” That is true, but that excuse (or pride or shame) shouldn’t prevent sharing lessons learned. This sharing is especially valuable to geoprofessionals given the significant subsurface risk and unknowns we encounter at our project sites every day. The natural materials we work with (soil, rock, groundwater) vary and can be unpredictable. Because of this, our profession has significant professional liability risks. We can help mitigate that risk by sharing and studying the lessons that have been learned from failures throughout geoprofessional consulting.
Many GBA member firms review the case histories during their monthly staff meetings. Having a young professional select a case history, study it, and present a synopsis to their cohorts is a great way to improve that person’s risk awareness and train the entire group.
The most commonly downloaded case history in 2024 was a newer one, #115: Don’t Drown Your Sorrows… Yet. Here’s a summary of this case history from the GBA Case History Digest:
A GBA Member Firm was hired to assess whether a proposed facility was buildable. The original project scope did
These podcasts are about one hour long and often include interviews with the author of the case history. They are available for free to everyone and can be found at www.gbapodcast.com or wherever you listen to podcasts.
not include final design or construction observation services. The Member Firm was later contracted to assess the exposed subgrade at the project site, where static groundwater was observed, consistent with the Member Firm’s prior report. The Member Firm was told that they didn’t do enough to call out the issues related to the groundwater and that they were reserving the right to hold the firm responsible for the additional costs incurred.
The Member Firm remained involved in the project and took steps to strengthen the client relationship. The Member Firm’s suggestions along the way resulted in considerable savings and the project was finished within budget – and the Member Firm avoided a lawsuit.
Recently, “Higher Ground” case histories (such as #117) have been prepared that share lessons learned from positive experiences on a project or from business operations. We can similarly learn and improve our operations from these successes.
Over the past few years GBA has been producing podcasts that focus on the case histories. To date, 11 of the case histories have been the subject of podcasts. These podcasts are about one hour long and often include interviews with the author of the case history. They are available for free to everyone and can be found at www.gbapodcast.com or wherever you listen to podcasts. Here are summaries from the GBA Case History Digest of the two most popular GBA case history podcasts:
#64: GOOD COMMUNICATION IS KEY TO A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT
Working for a civil engineering firm on a county landfill project, a GBA Member Firm performed a geotechnical investigation using a scope of services (test pits/no borings) prepared by the civil engineering firm. The scope was not sufficient, which led to change orders and delays during construction. The constructor filed a claim with the county, which in turn led to the civil engineering firm and Member Firm getting involved. Working together, the dispute was resolved far faster and with less time and money than otherwise may have occurred.
SPECIAL SECTION: GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
Lessons learned:
• Be alert when price is most important to your client.
Perform a complete professional service.
• Encourage effective communication.
• Conflicts are often contagious.
#108: OUT OF SCOPE ASSISTANCE CAUSES PROBLEM
GBA Member Firm provides a geotechnical engineering report and CoMET services, including earthwork and foundation construction observation, for the construction of a five-storey, wood frame senior living facility on undeveloped land known for expansive clay soils. About four years after construction was completed and the facility was occupied, sanitary sewer lines began backing up and the lower-level floor slab
began to show heaving-related distress. After very costly repairs were completed, the client filed construction-defect claims against all the design firms involved.
Lessons learned:
• No good deed goes unpunished.
• Prevent recommendations from becoming requirements.
• Do not unilaterally deviate from the scope of service.
• It pays to be your brother’s keeper.
• Documentation can be your best defense. E-mail is an inappropriate means of communicating professional judgement.
• Hired guns seldom establish the standard of care as they should.
• Consider limitation of liability during your go/no-go analysis.
In 2019, a presentation titled “Almost 50 Years of Case Histories: What Lessons Have We Learned?” was made at a GBA conference. In that presentation, GBA Past-President Woodward L. “Woody” Vogt, P.E., D.GE, F.GBA, F.ACI, F.ASCE, F.ASTM, summarized the top lessons learned from decades of GBA case histories:
1. If it isn’t in writing, it didn’t happen.
2. Perform a go/no-go evaluation.
3. Respond quickly to problems.
4. Protect yourself: don’t rely on others.
5. Project risk is inversely proportional to project size and complexity.
All GBA member firms are encouraged to contribute to the case history library. If you would like to share your experiences in a new case history, GBA will provide assistance with writing, formatting, graphic design, and editing. Writing a GBA case history is rewarding.
We geoprofessionals confront risk every day on our projects and in our business operations. We can become more comfortable with that risk and improve our ability to mitigate it through ongoing education and training. That education and training is best when our entire geoprofessional community contributes. GBA case histories are the leading tool in that effort! Share your favorite case histories with your coworkers, cohorts, and geofriends today.
He has experience in geotechnical and geological engineering for a wide variety of projects, sites, and subsurface conditions. He started Bedrock GeoConsult in 2022 to provide expert geotechnical engineering and engineering geology consulting services in the central USA. He helps contractors, owners, legal counsel, and design teams by providing third-party peer reviews, independent guidance, construction engineering support services, and expert evaluations. Mr. Wendland has also conducted geotechnical forensic analyses of structures that have been impacted by expansive clay soils, compressible foundation bearing materials, groundwater, or poor construction. These forensic analyses have included a variety of failed retaining walls, cut slopes, embankments, foundations, and floor slabs.
Steve Wendland, PE, PG, BCGE, is the President of Bedrock GeoConsult.
People in all professions make mistakes, but at GBA, geoprofessionals share what they’ve learned from them.
RETENTION AND ENGAGEMENT IN A/E/C COMPANIES – BEYOND THE STATS
Stewart Osgood and Jeff Jaros
The number of open positions for civil engineers exceeds the number of graduates entering the workforce and this gap is expected to widen. Combined with the reality that the civil engineering community is largely made up of baby boomers and Gen Xers looking to retire in the next several years and you have a growing (exciting?) imbalance. At the same time, publicly owned infrastructure is in desperate need of repair and/or replacement that will require significant resources. This will require more civil engineers, innovation, efficiency, alternative delivery, and an embracing of the moment to bring about lasting change.
WORKFORCE CHALLENGE
Our A/E/C companies are already stretched thin with some of the highest workload seen in decades as more funding is put into repairing and enhancing infrastructure. Whether for drinking water, wastewater treatment, transportation, electricity, or fossil fuels, it’s the A/E/C companies that will be tasked with delivering solutions.
Given the widening labor shortage and considering it can cost several multiples of salary to recruit and onboard a new employee, the first and easiest thing a company can do is hold on to and invest in its people; in other words, reduce turnover.
MEASURING TURNOVER
The simplest method to measure turnover is to divide the number of people who left the company by the total number of employees during a given time. Involuntary turnover is measured as the number of employees that were terminated. This can provide insight into your hiring and interviewing practices. Are you hiring the wrong people or is your training and development program not robust enough? Are their skills not properly aligned with the needs of the role because the interview process was insufficient, or is your training program not developing your professionals properly?
Voluntary turnover is measured as the number of employees that left on their own.
This is where most companies focus their attention and efforts. You should perform a meaningful exit interview, conducted by a neutral executive, with every employee that leaves voluntarily. This gives insight into your culture, leadership, clients, project management, and project selection. While money is a significant driver, it’s not the primary reason employees leave. More often, it’s their boss and types of projects, which are generally tied to professional growth and advancement opportunities.
At the risk of upsetting our human resources professionals, we believe that an involuntary annual turnover rate of 2%–3% is healthy, as is a voluntary turnover rate of 10%. If you don’t have any employees on a Performance Improvement Plan or if involuntary turnover is zero, you’re likely too tolerant of substandard performance. If voluntary turnover is in the low single digits, you’ve created a safe space that’s likely not demanding enough. You need some turnover, and something in the 10%–14% level annually is not uncommon or unhealthy.
IT STARTS WITH CULTURE
Controlling turnover is directly tied to company culture: the set of beliefs and values, how you communicate and the language you use, and the daily practices of your employees. What behaviors are accepted, reinforced, and tolerated? How do employees act toward and speak to each other? More importantly, how does the company’s leadership speak to employees? Put simply, the culture of your company is what you celebrate and encourage, and what you punish and discourage.
Know Your Why
To understand your culture, you need to know why your employees stay and leave. Conducting periodic salary surveys and random “stay” interviews are great ways to gather feedback.
It’s important to note that we shouldn’t strive for homogeneity in our firms. We’ve worked with many firms through information sharing, peer-to-peer reviews, and chatting over beer. Each company needs to know
SPECIAL SECTION: GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
what behavior they reward and discourage. Should a 20-person landscape architecture and planning firm from the U.S. have the same values and culture as a 3,000-person mining services firm in British Columbia? No.
Career Growth
Second to culture is career growth. Typically, there is a direct link between career growth (upward mobility) and responsibility and compensation. Employees want to be challenged and work on exciting projects aligned with their values. They want clarity, progression, and promotions.
Build a career map for the roles in your organization so it’s understood what’s required to advance. Have written roles and responsibilities visible to all employees for every position.
Lastly, ensure a robust career planning program. We differentiate this from a performance review. Career planning assures alignment and sets goals for each employee. These should be reviewed on a quarterly basis to gauge progress and course correct if necessary.
Ownership Structure
Another factor affecting company culture is ownership structure. Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) and employeeowned firms can resonate with many. Having an ownership stake in the company can be attractive but may come at a cost. Employeeowned firms require the purchase of company stock, as do some ESOPs depending on their structure and level of ownership. Purchase of company stock provides working capital to fund growth and employees are rewarded for their efforts through escalation of the stock price and dividend-type payments.
Private equity–backed firms and publicly traded companies do not require that employees purchase stock for working capital. However, employees also do not share in the net profits as richly nor are they at risk of losing investment money. These types of capitalized firms also tend to have a more aggressive culture for growth that translates into heavier workloads and swift corrective actions if performance is below goals. This isn’t to say these firms don’t provide a rewarding culture and career growth. But again, what works for one employee may not be attractive to another.
REWARDING PERFORMANCE
Regardless of ownership structure, you must reward performance. This is two-fold: both
monetary and non-monetary. Structure your compensation program so it’s tied to both company and employee performance. How you do this is tied to your culture: what do you celebrate and what do you discourage. As bookends, there is the (1) “peanut butter approach,” which includes a socialistic “spread the rewards around to everyone” method, and (2) a hard-nosed business approach that is capitalistic. At DOWL, we did a 25% socialistic model to divide up bonuses and then a 75% capitalistic approach and we held our managers to that axiom. The model at NTH is not terribly different. This is not for everyone, but it worked for our firms.
Clarity on KPIs
It’s imperative that you have clarity surrounding the key performance indicators (KPIs) measured to determine employee compensation. Vague guidelines and lack of clarity can be viewed as arbitrary and capricious. Yes, there is always a qualitative component, but it should be 20% of the whole, not 90%.
Any reward program should include both quantitative and qualitative metrics. Determining performance against quantitative goals is easy. Qualitative metrics can be trickier but should be tied to culture. Further, feedback on how an employee has exhibited the qualities that strengthen your culture should be sought from multiple colleagues.
Don’t Treat Everyone Equally
Pay your star performers what they’re worth. Achieving excellence requires effort
and more than 40 hours a week. Your star performers are working hard, putting the time in, and everybody sees it. Reward them for it. Similarly, don’t reward ‘C’ players like ‘A’ players.
Recognize their efforts and success visibly as well. Promote your stars, write about them, and praise their efforts. Set the standard for what exceptional success looks like. Ask your managers, “If I fired you tomorrow but told you that you could take 10 people with you to start your own company, who would they be?” We all know who they are. Take care of them.
EMPLOYEE EXPERIENCE
Provide an exceptional experience for your employees and expect equally exceptional behavior from them. The employer–employee relationship is not a one-way street. Sadly, not all employees will fully embrace your core values, exhibit the culture that you foster, or enjoy the projects that you work on. Remember, the most dangerous person (partner) in your office is the one that has high performance but with bad behavior that has been tolerated for a long time.
The authors note that implementing measures that effectively “handcuff” employees to the company through various deferred award programs and early exit penalties rarely work. In fact, these programs usually result in the opposite of the desired outcome. Further, promoting your employees beyond their competence level without the necessary training and
You cannot grow fast enough to create opportunities for everyone that joins you. There is a natural selection process at work.
experience also results in the opposite outcome. It’s a fallacy for employees to believe, and for company management to promote, that career (and compensation) growth is related to assuming management duties. Many, if not most, engineering professionals entered the field to solve engineering challenges, not manage people or businesses. Your culture should allow for advancement without management requirements.
What is Healthy Turnover?
Turnover exceeding 14% is unhealthy and unsustainable. In a 100-person firm, this is the equivalent of losing 1+ employees per month. You will find yourself in the difficult position of paying too richly to attract staff, lowering your profitability, and wasting money. Turnover lower than 8% probably means you’re too tolerant, do not expect enough, and have created a “meh” culture.
A few guidelines that we subscribe to: Never lose an ‘A’ player. Pay them what they’re worth. These employees are natural attractions for clients and other A players.
• Hold on to ‘B’ players as long as you can. Losing more than 10% will lead to a void of ‘A’ players down the road.
• Allow ‘C’ players to make their own decision. In general, ‘C’ players meet expectations and do little more. Every company needs ‘C’ players that are content in getting the job done correctly and on time. Losing more than 20% of ‘C’ players will strain the system and require more effort by your ‘A’ and ‘B’ players.
• Encourage ‘D’ players to join your competitors. They create negative value, cause more work for others, and could be a liability. Terminate if you must. Some level of turnover is necessary in all organizations. It provides opportunities for advancement and allows for fresh ideas and new perspectives. You cannot grow fast enough to create opportunities for everyone that joins you, even if they are all ‘A’ players. There is a natural selection process at work.
Coaching: Up or Out
We’re not suggesting that ‘D’ players be shown the door immediately. You never know what might be influencing their performance. What you can’t do is wait for improvement. Regardless of what is affecting them, it must be addressed.
When it comes to coaching, all employees will benefit from some level. Perhaps ‘B’ players can be coached to ‘A’ players. Perhaps ‘A’ players can
be coached for a greater leadership role. For underperforming employees, we recommend you “Coach ‘em up or coach ‘em out”.
In the best-case scenario, you develop a turnaround plan that incorporates regular check-ins and milestones. The employee recognizes the factors affecting their performance and finds solutions. Perhaps your company offers an employee assistance program or leave of absence. Whatever the fix, remain firm on the timeline and milestones.
Also, be compassionate and understanding to the people you need to place outside your firm. First, it’s the right thing to do. Second, many of these employees will go on to be your clients, colleagues, or subconsultants.
More Than a Job
For most of us in the geoprofessions, this is more than a job and more than a career. It’s a dedication to solving the world’s challenging civil and environmental problems. The companies we want to work for should also subscribe to this.
Treating employees as a means to revenue will put you out of business faster than the formation of a sinkhole. Foster the profession and make the workplace fun. We spend the majority of our adult lifetimes at work and with colleagues. You need to make it more than a job.
CONCLUSION
To attract and retain employees, especially ‘A’ and ‘B’ players, you must have a strong brand. Tell your company’s story. Our profession has always shied away from attention. This is counterproductive to the A/E/C industry and your company.
The more we talk about the amazing things we do, the impact our work has, and the criticalness of our services, the more we might change the course of a young person’s career to our profession. And, we might start getting paid what we’re really worth.
Stewart Osgood, P.E., is a graduate of the University of Vermont with a B.S. in Civil Engineering and from the University of Alaska with a M.S. in Arctic Engineering. He is the former President,
CEO, and Chairman of the Board of DOWL. He held that position for over 20 years and oversaw the growth of the firm from a small Anchorage-based firm to a regional firm headquartered in Seattle with over 600 people in 20 offices in eight western U.S. states. In addition to leading DOWL through significant growth using both organic and acquisitive means, Stewart also maintained connections with clients, projects, and employees. One of his cherished programs that was started under his leadership was an in-house emerging leader program that focused on preparing staff for upward mobility and increased responsibility as their careers progressed. Stewart also sits on several professional Boards and contributes throughout his community in a volunteer capacity. He lives in Scottsdale, Arizona, with his long-time partner Amy, and his two labradoodles. He has two adult sons that are contributing to the world in the fields of mechanical engineering and law. His “thing" outside of work includes heavy work on his street and gravel bicycles.
Jeff Jaros is President | CEO of NTH Consultants, Ltd. (NTH), an infrastructure and environmental engineering firm headquartered in Michigan. He joined NTH in April 2005 and was named a Senior Associate / Vice President in April 2008. He was promoted to Chief Operating Officer in 2017 and appointed to CEO in May 2023. Jeff received his B.S. in Meteorology from Penn State in 1991 and his M.B.A. in 2000 from Michigan State University.
NTH is a 100% employee-owned ESOP company focused on providing civil, environmental, geotechnical, and geostructural engineering solutions to its clients. At NTH, the employee-owners are the most valuable asset of the company and Jeff is focused on assuring an exceptional experience not only for NTH’s clients but also its employee-owners. Providing an exceptional experience for its clients starts with cultivating exceptional employees.
Jeff is an active member of GBA and its many committees as well as proudly serving on the Board of Directors.
TAKING CARE OF BUSINESS: INCREASING ENGAGEMENT WITH GBA
Craig Fischer and Chuck Gregory
Increasing awareness of, and engagement with, professional organizations can be an ongoing challenge for engineering firms. Those who are actively involved cite both personal and professional benefits, yet many employees participate in only a few, if any, organizations, even though they are directly related to their profession. Embracing this challenge, Terracon was able to move the needle on our engagement with the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA).
Terracon is a 60-year-old firm focused on environmental, facilities, and geotechnical services plus materials testing with approximately 7,000 employee-owners in more than 180 locations across the United States. Having so many locations meant that no matter what approach we took to increase engagement, we had to ensure we could reach every employee.
To tackle this challenge, Terracon used an in-house group of consultants known as “Idea Lab.” Idea Lab focused on helping small teams of employee-owners develop innovative solutions to challenges facing them.
PLAYING MONEYBALL
A helpful analogy for our approach comes from a scene in the movie “Moneyball,” based on the book of the same name by Michael Lewis. In the scene, the general manager of the Oakland A’s Major League Baseball team (Billy Beane, played by Brad Pitt) is in a room with A’s scouts who are experts in evaluating players and their potential. Having just lost several key players to other teams, the group is trying to figure out what to do next. The scouts suggest various players that Oakland should try to obtain, but after a while Billy grows frustrated and asks, “What’s
the problem?” The scouts all respond with various versions of “We need these skills” or “We need this type of player,” but Billy does not accept it.
Instead, Billy points out that there are rich teams, there are poor teams, and then way below the poor teams are the Oakland A’s. If the A’s try to obtain talent the same way the rich teams do, they will lose every time. What they need is a new way of thinking about the problem they are trying to solve; a way that will work for them and their situation.
Similarly, what Terracon needed was a new way of thinking about increasing engagement in professional organizations. Rather than treating symptoms, we needed to find and address the root causes.
PROCESS
To find and address the root causes, we recommend a series of steps that allow for unplanned creativity while also moving towards a goal, shown in Figure 1.
These steps are descriptive rather than prescriptive. That is, any project such as this will proceed in various directions at times, and that is OK. Unlike typical engineering projects with a contract, this type of project evolves more casually to give team members the freedom to suggest unconventional ideas without fear of criticism.
Initiate Project
The initiation stage lays the groundwork for later success; skimping or rushing here will likely result in confusion and stagnation later. First, find a champion: someone who has a personal stake in the cause. This person is very likely to be senior in the organization.
The champion will spend little time on the project but will ensure the team stays on track.
Next, find both a project leader and a process owner. The project leader will oversee the project from week to week and hold team members accountable for meeting their commitments. They should be familiar with the problem and eager to solve it. The process owner has responsibility after the project ends for seeing that the solutions have the intended effect.
In our model, the champion, project leader, and process owner were assisted by an internal consultant with expertise in ideation and innovation. The consultant facilitated the team meetings using agendas that the project leader approved.
Assemble Team
With the leadership team set, the next stage of the project is assembling a small team of subject matter experts and customers. As much as possible, the team should be a true cross-section of employees. In our case, that meant some who were regularly active in GBA, some who were aware of it, and some who were unaware. We wanted the team to have members at many stages of their careers, as well as both managers and individual contributors. Having many perspectives often leads to both more ideas and unconventional ideas. The entire team structure is summarized in Figure 2.
The project leader has primary responsibility for recruiting team members. Team members should be asked to take part, rather than told to participate. This project will be in addition to their regular work and depends on their enthusiasm and energy. Let them know the
Figure 1. High-level process steps.
approximate time commitment, that this will be unlike most other projects they work on, and that they will get out of it what they put into it!
The first decision the team makes is what to call the project. A memorable name chosen by the team helps to differentiate this work from the typical engineering projects they work on. Our team chose to emphasize the “Business” in GBA by choosing “Taking Care of Business” from the Bachman-Turner Overdrive song.
Set a Goal
In our approach, the team chooses its own goal, subject to approval by the champion. To set a goal, though, the team needs to decide the exact problem they wish to solve. With so many different perspectives on the team, it is likely that each team member perceives the problem differently. The consultant takes the lead in asking lots of open-ended questions so that everyone can learn from one another. This results in a problem statement that the entire team agrees on.
Our problem statement was: “Few Terracon employees are taking any advantage of the benefits of our membership in GBA. Many employees do not have accounts with GBA, nor may they know much about the purpose of GBA and how it can further benefit them individually, Terracon as a company, and the engineering profession as a whole.” Keep in mind that this problem statement was unique to Terracon at the time and with those team members. Doing a similar project today with a different team would likely yield a different problem statement.
Then it is possible for the team to set a goal. This gives the team ownership in meeting a commitment they set. One thing to watch out for here is aiming too high: later in the project, if the team struggles to meet the goal, they will likely get discouraged.
The project leader and consultant work together to right-size the goal by asking the team probing questions about what it would take to achieve it. If the team is up to a goal that may require more time commitment than was originally planned, that can be OK. In most cases, it is best to aim reasonably or maybe a little low; that way, once the project really gets rolling, it may be possible to exceed the goal, which is rewarding for the team.
Our goal was: “Include relevant GBA materials in multiple Terracon initiatives, applications,
and processes, and promote their use.” We selected this goal because as a GBA member we can distribute their materials internally and so the challenge for the team became finding the right touchpoints. Ideally, a goal would be more measurable than this one was, but we were confident that it captured what we needed to do without anticipating how we might do it.
Ideate
This is the part of the project everyone has been waiting for! It is also the hardest to predict in advance since there are many methods of ideation; the best ones to use
depend greatly on the problem statement and the goal.
One common theme among ideation methods is facilitating discussions. The team is working towards the goal and while there may be activities such as private brainstorming, they will be followed by sharing those ideas with others. The consultant is instrumental here as an outside voice seeking to understand and politely encouraging more ideas from all team members.
It is important during this stage to welcome all ideas, no matter how extreme or unlikely.
Figure 2. Team structure, roles, and responsibilities.
Figure 3. Each idea plotted by how much it will impact the goal and how easy it will be to do.
SPECIAL SECTION: GEOPROFESSIONAL BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
If the team starts self-censoring, that is a warning sign. A phrase that can help at the start of an ideation session is: “Out of quantity comes quality.” Ideas are free, even if implementing them is not, and the more ideas there are, the more likely the team will be able to choose those that best help meet the goal. Some of our best ideas came from the more junior staff, the free thinkers, and those not familiar with GBA.
Select Solutions
After ideating comes the challenging work of selecting solutions. Again, let the team choose! They will be responsible for implementing the solutions they pick. A useful technique here is to poll each team member using a tool like Google Forms or SurveyMonkey on all the ideas and ask them two questions about each idea: (1) Will it make a big difference? and (2) Is it easy to implement? They rate every idea from 0 to 10 on both questions. The combined results can be shared with the team to help them concentrate on the ideas that are both the most impactful and easiest to do. Figure 3 shows an example of this.
It is fine to pick ideas from any quadrant as part of the overall solution; for example, sometimes there are ideas that will not make a big difference but are so easy to do that it makes sense to do them. Other times there are ideas that may make a significant difference but will require a lot of work; those ideas may turn into a separate project for another part of the organization.
To meet our goal, the team reviewed training programs that already incorporated GBA materials and which materials they used. Three notable programs were risk management training, project manager training, and quality program training for senior professionals. All three of these programs are held several times per year and reach hundreds of employeeowners annually.
We also chose to create a GBA-focused page on our intranet and to promote these changes on our internal social network.
Implement Solutions
The most important part of this step is that it is the team members themselves who implement the solutions! They may need to work with others outside the team, and that is
fine; the team member remains accountable for seeing that it gets done.
In our project, team members helped incorporate GBA materials into risk management, project manager, and quality program training. Several team members were in roles that allowed them to influence these classes, which already relied on some GBA materials. Our team members provided updated lists of specific GBA materials to use and added calls to action for participants to register with GBA. GBA materials used in these programs include case histories, project management fundamentals, and report preparation. Also, our Legal Department continued sharing GBA materials on taboo words and depositions.
To promote the team’s work, each member agreed to actively mention GBA in meetings and training sessions where it would be relevant. The team also posted on our internal social network about GBA and its benefits.
CONCLUSIONS
Our project made a measurable difference! We achieved our goal, evidenced by new signups with GBA increasing by 60% over the prior three years’ average. That then contributed to Terracon winning Engagement Awards from GBA in the large firm category for three years in a row (and counting). Terracon’s legal claims profile, which was lessening significantly before this project, has reduced further since then. We continue using GBA materials in Terracon’s internal programs and promoting GBA to those participants plus other groups such as our Emerging Leaders. Finally, we believe that sharing GBA membership benefits with potential and current employees has helped improve both recruitment and retention.
Craig Fischer is a Program Manager at Terracon, currently leading the Content Management initiative. He has over 30 years of IT experience in the engineering industry and prior to his current role, co-founded Terracon's Idea Lab, an innovation incubator focused on helping employee-owners improve their
own work. For a number of years before that, Craig led the applications and project management teams within Terracon’s IT department. Prior to joining Terracon, Craig held various roles at Black & Veatch and Texas Instruments. He has been a member of the Kansas City Council of IT Executives for many years and served as its president in 2022. He also served as an advisory board member to the Olathe (Kansas) school district between 2015 and 2022. Craig has a Bachelor’s degree in Computer Engineering from Iowa State University.
Chuck Gregory , P.E., F.GBA, a 29-year veteran of Terracon Consultants, Inc., is a senior principal in the firm, also serving as Vice President and Regional Manager overseeing offices in San Antonio, Laredo, Pharr, and Corpus Christi, Texas. Chuck has 40 years of experience as a consulting engineer with expertise in geotechnical engineering, construction materials engineering and testing, and forensic engineering. His areas of technical expertise include soil stabilization, pavement design, pavement failure analysis, and concrete technology. Along with report review and project management, other responsibilities include troubleshooting, mentoring, client development, staffing, planning, and budgeting. Chuck holds Bachelor and Master of Science degrees in civil engineering from Texas A&M University (Class of 1981) and has been a licensed Professional Engineer in Texas since 1987. Chuck has a long history of service and involvement in the GBA. He has been a board member since 2015 and is currently the Chair of the Resource and Collaboration Committee. For his outstanding achievements and dedicated services to the engineering profession, Chuck was awarded Distinguished Engineer of the Foundation for the Texas Engineering Foundation in 2022, awarded 2015 TSPE Bexar Chapter Engineer of the Year, and received the Lifetime Service Award from the San Antonio Chapter of the American Concrete Institute in 2013.
RECLAIMING VALUE IN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES: OVERCOMING THE TRAP OF COMMODITIZATION
June R. Jewell
With the right mindset, a commitment to strategic client selection, and the tools to define and communicate their own unique value, geotechnical firms can lead the charge in reshaping how engineering services are valued.
UNDERSTANDING COMMODITIZATION IN GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
Why do some geotechnical and engineering firms consistently command premium fees and achieve industry-leading profit margins, while others struggle to break out of single-digit profitability? The answer isn’t luck or even superior technical skills — it’s how those firms position themselves in the marketplace. Firms that communicate their value effectively and align with clients who appreciate that value are rewarded accordingly. Meanwhile, too many firms fall into the trap of competing on price, diminishing their worth, and settling for projects — and clients — that don’t reflect the true value of their expertise.
Despite the immense knowledge and experience geotechnical professionals bring to their work, many firms still compete primarily
on price. As a result, clients undervalue their expertise, often demanding more service for less compensation, while pushing risk and scope creep onto consultants. This dynamic leaves many professionals disempowered, struggling to raise rates amid inflation and rising salaries.
Firms that succeed financially are those that focus on attracting clients who value quality — and who are willing to pay for it. They clearly communicate their unique value and don’t allow themselves to be reduced to interchangeable providers.
HOW THE INDUSTRY GOT HERE
The economic ups and downs of recent decades — recessions, market booms, and global disruptions — have shaped the business
practices of engineering firms. Many adopted survival tactics during lean times, such as discounting fees, accepting marginal projects, and retaining difficult clients. Unfortunately, those habits persisted even when the market improved.
Too many firms still prioritize winning work over earning profit, and a reluctance to talk openly about money has created a cultural blind spot. This has allowed clients to commoditize technical services — viewing firms as functionally identical and focusing on price over value.
WHY COMMODITIZATION HURTS FIRMS
Operating on razor-thin margins stunts a firm’s ability to invest in talent, innovation, and growth. Limited profits constrain efforts to
• Attract and retain top-tier employees
• Invest in cutting-edge technologies
• Execute strategic acquisitions
• Launch effective marketing campaigns
• Withstand market downturns or retire founders
Low profitability also diminishes shareholder returns and weakens the firm’s value in any future transaction. Allowing clients to dictate price — and ignoring the true worth of geotechnical insight — is one of the most damaging practices in our profession.
GBA’S INDUSTRY-WIDE RESPONSE
In recognition of these dangers, members of the Geoprofessional Business Association (GBA) convened in Nashville in 2021 to address
commoditization head-on. They developed a set of principles designed to help firms recognize, protect, and promote the value of their services. These principles form the Elevate Geoprofessional Value Accord, a framework to guide business decisions and client engagements. All geoprofessionals are encouraged to review and sign the Accord at www.elevategeoprofessionalvalue.org
BREAKING THE CYCLE: THREE KEYS TO PREMIUM FEES
Firms can escape the low-fee trap by uncovering and amplifying their hidden value. Geotechnical consultants provide insights that save clients millions in construction delays, maintenance costs, and risk. That level of impact can’t be billed appropriately by the hour.
The three essential components of achieving premium fees are
1. Mindset: Believing in your value and eliminating self-limiting beliefs
2. Client Quality: Working only with clients who respect and pay for your expertise
3. Competitive Advantage: Clearly articulating your firm’s unique value
Let’s break these down further.
1. Mindset: Stop Undervaluing Your Work
Many engineering professionals inadvertently sabotage their success due to deeply ingrained, self-limiting beliefs. These beliefs lead to fearbased decision-making in pricing and negotiations:
• “The client won’t pay that much.”
• “We’re no better than the competition.”
• “Sales isn’t my strength.”
• “The market won’t bear higher fees.”
Seller-doers — technical experts expected to generate business — rarely receive formal sales training. As a result, they default to appeasing clients, rather than confidently presenting the value they offer.
These beliefs often become part of a firm’s culture, handed down from senior leaders to younger staff, reinforcing the cycle of undercharging.
2. Quality of Clients: Be Selective, Not Reactive
Accepting any client can be costly. Every project requires attention, and problematic clients can monopolize staff time, increase stress, and reduce overall profitability.
It’s crucial to assess your current clients and define what makes a client ideal. This includes both quantitative criteria (e.g., revenue, payment history) and qualitative ones (e.g., ease of communication, alignment with your values). Use a grading system (A, B, C, D) to evaluate clients, then create an action plan:
• A clients: Retain and reward
• B clients: Develop and strengthen
• C clients: Maintain or scale down
• D clients: Exit or decline new work
An ideal client pays well, respects your expertise, and aligns with your brand. And just like in a personal relationship, partnering with the wrong client can result in years of frustration.
3. Competitive Advantage: Deliver Results, Not Just Services
Most firms emphasize qualifications and technical skills in proposals. While important, these are usually the baseline for consideration — not differentiators.
To escape the sea of sameness, firms must demonstrate the outcomes they deliver. Clients want confidence, reduced risk, and successful project execution — not just a report or set of drawings.
This means identifying and promoting your firm’s Winning Advantage, which consists of
• Unique Value Proposition: A clear, compelling statement that differentiates your value from competitors.
• Proprietary Process: A branded, visual framework that showcases how you deliver exceptional results consistently.
This combination not only improves client understanding of your value, it enhances internal alignment and brand clarity.
THE 5-STEP RAISE FORMULA FOR DIFFERENTIATION
A practical framework to escape commoditization is the RAISE Your Value Formula:
R = Rate your clients
A = Assess current marketing and messaging
I = Investigate how and where you add client value
S = Strategize your unique advantage
E = Execute the plan across your firm
This approach enables firms to shift from reactive selling to strategic client selection and positioning — ultimately leading to better fees, better clients, and better outcomes.
IT’S TIME TO ELEVATE THE PROFESSION
Commoditization is a trap that drains profitability, talent, and opportunity. But it is not inevitable. With the right mindset, a commitment to strategic client selection, and the tools to define and communicate their own unique value, geotechnical firms can lead the charge in reshaping how engineering services are valued.
Our profession — and the clients we serve — benefit when firms stop competing on price and start standing firm in their worth.
June R. Jewell, CPA, is a business management expert who helps architecture and engineering firm leaders maximize profit and performance. She is the author of the best-selling books “Find the Lost Dollars” and “RAISE Your Value.” Through her company, AEC Business Solutions, she delivers assessments, workshops, and training programs that stop profit leakage and transform firm culture. Learn more at www.aecbusiness.com
GEOSYNTHETICS
Sam Bhat, Chair, Geosynthetics Division
According to the Canadian Automobile Association (2021), driving on poor-quality roads alone incurs over $3 billion in annual costs to Canadian drivers. Accumulated water in road structures reduces their strength and stiffness, leading to potholes, rutting, and cracking. To address these problems, engineers have turned to geosynthetics, a class of material widely used for over five decades to improve the performance of earth structures such as roads, retaining walls, slopes, landfills, etc.
Wicking Geosynthetic Composites for Road Applications
INTRODUCTION
Among conventional geosynthetics, nonwoven geotextiles (NWGs) have been used in embankments and pavements for separation, filtration, and drainage. NWGs are porous but made of hydrophobic fibres. Therefore, to achieve the drainage function, NWGs must be initially wetted. Otherwise, they may repel water, creating a barrier at the soil–NWG interface and negating the intended function. To overcome this problem, wicking nonwoven geotextiles (WNWGs) have been introduced recently (Figure 1). They offer separation, filtration, and drainage functions of NWGs with rapid wetting and wicking capabilities. WNWGs possess a unique microstructure and specialized treatment of the same base material as NWGs to convert hydrophobic fibres into hydrophilic ones, enhancing spontaneous wetting and wicking. WNWGs exhibit both spontaneous and forced (gravity) wetting and wicking capabilities, enhancing water in soils (both saturated and unsaturated) to penetrate vertically in WNWGs and move laterally toward the exposed ends of road slopes. In contrast to NWGs, geogrids are widely used for stabilization and reinforcement in roads by providing lateral confinement and improving load distribution. Thus, geogrids help distribute loads widely and evenly and reduce load transfer to the subgrade, thereby slowing degradation.
An innovative wicking geosynthetic composite that combines the benefits of wicking geotextiles and reinforcing geogrids has been invented by Titan Environmental Containment, Ltd. This material consists of a high-stiffness biaxial polypropylene (PP) geogrid heat-bonded to a wicking nonwoven geotextile, as shown in Figure 2. This article synthesizes the recent research progress on this material and its application in reinforcing road bases at the University of Victoria.
MATERIAL CHARACTERIZATION
Liu et al. (2025a) evaluated the water removal capability of WNWGs in both water alone and saturated soils. Their study involved experimental evaluation of the water removal rate, in-soil wicking behaviour, contact angle measurements, and microscale analyses. Geogrid components were not included in the study, as they do not play a significant role in water transport.
Water Removal Rate
The ability of WNWGs to remove water was studied using two plastic containers: one supplying water from a higher elevation and the other collecting at a lower elevation through siphoning action. Water removal tests demonstrated WNWGs enhanced performance — approximately three times higher water removal compared to conventional NWGs. This enhanced water removal reflects the combined effect of efficient wicking and drainage mechanisms. The process involves initial wicking, saturation of the geotextile, and subsequent drainage. These results highlight the superior ability of
WNWGs to transport water rapidly and drain water away effectively compared to nonwicking geotextiles.
Vertical Hanging Test
This test was performed by hanging a strip of WNWG vertically and submerging the lower end in a water container. The rise of water in the strip was recorded. After 24 hours, the test showed a maximum wetting front rise of 30 mm. In comparison, the conventional nonwoven geotextile (NWG) showed no observable rise in the wetting front, indicating a lack of capillary action.
Horizontal Wicking Test
The horizontal wicking test was conducted by placing one end of WNWG in water with the rest laid horizontally along a desk. The test showed a maximum wicking speed of 152 mm/min and water transport up to 2692 mm in 80 hours — far exceeding the performance of the NWG, which exhibited negligible movement without forced wetting. WNWGs combined rapid absorption and sustained horizontal transport demonstrated
Subash Koirala, Minghao Liu, Jiming Liu, Sam Bhat, Matthew East, and Cheng Lin
Figure 1: Geosynthetic material: wicking nonwoven geotextile (WNWG) (reproduced from Liu et al. 2025b, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
a fully hydrophilic nature due to its chemically modified fibre network. These observations established WNWGs as a reasonable choice for efficient water redistribution and drainage.
Contact Angle Test
The contact angle is a useful indicator of wettability of WNWGs, measured using the liquid droplet method of contact angle test. It was found that water drops were absorbed almost instantly — within 1/30 of a second — indicating a contact angle of 0o, the condition of fully hydrophilic materials as shown in Figure 3. This strong wettability in WNWGs is attributed to chemical modification of the fibre surface, which generates strong free surface energy. Additionally, the larger capillary radius and higher permittivity contribute to WNWGs exhibiting a lower vertical rise but enhanced lateral wicking and faster horizontal water movement. These structural advantages make WNWGs highly effective for rapid wetting and drainage in pavement applications.
Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) Analysis
The SEM analysis was performed to characterize the fibre size and arrangement using a Hitachi S-4808 cold field emission scanning electron microscope. WNWGs exhibit strong wicking behaviour due to their chemically induced hydrophilic functional groups (e.g., –OH). The SEM results indicated that the chemical treatment triggered internal fibrillation in the WNWG fibres, creating interfibrillar spaces that improved liquid retention. This supports the enhanced water absorption observed in WNWGs, distinguishing them from conventional geotextiles.
REPEATED LOAD TRIAXIAL
TESTS ON WICKGRID
Element-scale Repeated Load Triaxial (RLT) tests were conducted by Liu et al. (2024) on wicking geosynthetic composite-stabilized specimens in accordance with AASHTO T 307-99 (2021). A comparative study involving the composite-stabilized, geogrid-stabilized, and unstabilized specimens found that the wicking geosynthetic composite exhibited the lowest resilient modulus among the three. This aligns with the expectation that geogrids have a limited effect on resilient modulus in RLT testing. However, the unexpected outcome for the wicking, geosynthetic composite–stabilized specimen suggested the need of further investigation. In terms of permanent deformation, the composite-stabilized specimens performed better than the unreinforced specimens but underperformed compared to geogrid-stabilized specimens. This difference is attributed to the effective interlocking of aggregates both above and below the geogrid in coarse-grained materials.
However, the interlocking mechanism was only effective above the composite. This resulted in higher permanent deformation than geogrid-stabilized specimens. Nonetheless, the wicking geosynthetic composites are expected to outperform geogrids in soft subgrade conditions where wicking and moisture control are more critical than interlocking.
Model Testing
Rainfall Simulation Tests
A rainfall simulation test was conducted using an artificial rainfall simulator operating at a flow rate of 0.75 L/min for 15 minutes. In this model test, the WNWG demonstrated its ability to drain water through both capillary action and gravity. These mechanisms are fundamentally governed by wetting and wicking. The hydrophilic nature of the chemically modified WNWG
enabled capillary-driven wetting, while its high permittivity and transmissivity — retained from the conventional NWG — facilitated lateral water movement under hydraulic gradients. The conventional NWG, lacking spontaneous
The testing setup consisted of 150 mm thick base courses underlain by 600 mm thick subgrade (Liu et al. 2025b). The reinforcement was placed between the base course and the subgrade. The model tests included control section (unreinforced); conventional geogrid – nonwoven geotextile composite reinforced section; and wicking, geosynthetic composite–reinforced section. A purpose-built apparatus for plate loading tests, developed by Huang et al. (2021), was modified for the rainfall simulation test so that the wicking behaviour could be observed. The apparatus consisted of square aluminum box with a width of 750 mm and adjustable height with side walls constructed from stacked plates.
fibres
Figure 2: Wicking geotextile geogrid composite (reproduced from Liu et al. 2025b, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
Figure 3: Water droplet tests in NWGs and WNWGs: (a) before water dropped on WNWG; (b) 0.03 s after water dropped on WNWG; (c) 0.03 s after water dropped on NWG; (d) 30 s after water dropped on NWG (reproduced from Liu et al. 2025b, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
wetting and wicking capabilities, acted as a moisture barrier at its installation depth until the hydraulic gradient became sufficiently high to initiate flow. Post-test gravimetric moisture measurements confirmed this behaviour: the NWG retained more moisture due to water accumulation within the soil matrix, whereas WNWG transported water away effectively, resulting in lower residual moisture content along its length.
Plate Loading Tests
After rainfall simulation, the plate loading tests were conducted on the wicking geosynthetic composite, conventional geogrid-NWG composite, and unreinforced specimens. The results showed the wicking composite exhibited 58% and 274% improvements in bearing capacity and stiffness, respectively, compared to the unreinforced section. In contrast, the nonwoven geotextile-geogrid composite showed only 16% and 146% improvement. The additional 42% and 128% increases observed in the wicking system were provided by WNWG, as the geogrid component was identical in both the wicking geosynthetic composite and the NWG-geogrid composite. Furthermore, drying from the optimum moisture content (OMC) led to increased California Bearing Ratio (CBR) values and higher matric suction, both of which are directly proportional to the resilient modulus. A series of moisture-controlled CBR tests demonstrated a clear increase in CBR with decreasing moisture content below OMC, as shown in Figure 4. This also confirmed the superior drainage capability of the WNWG in the base course compared to the NWG. Additionally, the higher moisture content observed at the NWG–geogrid interface, relative to the WNWG–geogrid interface, resulted in lower matric suction and thus reduced shear strength, ultimately leading to a lower bearing capacity in the NWG assembly.
CONCLUSIONS
A new wicking geogrid composite was evaluated for its material properties, resilient modulus of reinforced soils in element tests, and drainage/reinforcement functions in model tests. The combined effects of the wicking capability of the wicking nonwoven geotextile and the reinforcing capability of the geogrids suggest significant potential for this material in improving road performance.
1. The wicking nonwoven geotextile (WNWG) exhibited superior horizontal drainage, achieving nearly three times higher moisture removal than (non-wicking) nonwoven geotextile (NWG), due to its spontaneous wicking capability and large capillary radius.
2. The WNWG composite improved bearing capacity and stiffness significantly, with a modulus improvement factor of 2.74
compared to 1.46 for the non-wicking geosynthetic–geogrid composite.
3. The wicking geosynthetic composite effectively combined lateral confinement from the geogrids and active water removal from WNWG, offering a dual benefit in road applications.
4. Repeated triaxial loading tests confirmed that the wicking geosynthetic composite reduced permanent deformation under cyclic loading, supporting its application in pavement systems over moisturesensitive subgrades.
5. Unlike traditional geosynthetics that act as capillary barriers, the wicking geosynthetic composite enabled sustained drainage and reinforcement, enhancing long-term performance in challenging soil environments.
REFERENCES
Huang, M., Lin, C., Pokharel, S.K., Tura, A., and Mukhopadhyaya, P. 2021. Model tests of freeze-thaw behavior of geocell-reinforced soils. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(3): 669–687.
Liu, J., Lin, C., Liu, M., and Bhat, S. 2024. Repeated load triaxial tests of WickGridTM stabilized base materials. E3S Web of Conferences, 569: 21006.
Liu, M., Liu, J., Bhat, S., Gao, Y., and Lin, C. 2025a. Model tests on wicking geosynthetic composite reinforced bases over weak subgrade. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 53(4): 938–949.
Liu, M., Liu, J., Bhat, S., Gupta, R., and Lin, C. 2025b. Evaluation of water removal capability of wicking nonwoven geotextiles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 53(6): 1228–1241.
Subash Koirala is a master’s student at the University of Victoria (UVic).
Minghao Liu is a graduate of UVic.
Jiming Liu is a PhD candidate at UVic.
Cheng Lin (chenglin918@uvic.ca) is an Associate Professor at UVic.
Sam Bhat and Matthew East are the CTO of Geosynthetics and Research & Innovation Engineer, respectively, at Titan Environmental Containment, Ltd.
Figure 4: Variation of CBR with moisture content for aggregates (reproduced from Liu et al. 2025a, licensed under CC BY-NC 4.0)
HERITAGE
Karl Terzaghi And Canada
With recollections by Charles (Charlie) Ripley
Introduction
Karl Terzaghi (1883–1963), is considered the Father of Soil Mechanics, a discipline now known as Geotechnical Engineering. A native of Prague, at the time located in the AustroHungarian Empire, Terzaghi graduated from the Technical University of Graz and then worked as a geologist in the field of civil engineering. Following his participation in World War I from 1914 to 1916, while on the staff of the Imperial Ottoman Engineering School, and then of Robert College in Istanbul, Turkey, Terzaghi carried out a program of research into the properties of soils. This led to the publication in 1925 of his book “Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage” (Earthwork Mechanics on the basis of Soil Physics), an important milestone in the study of soils as engineering materials. The publication of this book, a century ago, is often regarded as the birth of modern soil mechanics.
On the occasion of this important anniversary, the CGS Heritage Committee has reviewed its archives for Terzaghi’s connections with Canada. The following is a brief summary based primarily on recollections by Charles (Charlie) Ripley (1922–2007), a graduate student of Terzaghi’s at Harvard University in 1945–46 and later his friend and colleague on several projects in British Columbia.
Terzaghi the Teacher
Terzaghi was appointed a visiting professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1925 but 4 years later he returned to a specially created professorship at the Technical University of Vienna. He returned to the United
Frontispiece of “Erdbaumechanik auf bodenphysikalischer Grundlage”
(Credit: www.igs.uni-stuttgart.de)
States in 1938 to accept a part-time position at Harvard University, where he taught geological engineering until 1956. He was also a visiting research professor and frequent lecturer at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Table 1 lists 25 students of Terzaghi who, to our knowledge, were Canadian, studied or worked in Canada before or after attending Harvard. Some went on to have successful careers abroad; however, many became
recognized academics and practitioners in our country. Of the 25 students, Bob Peterson , Bob Hardy , Fred Matich , and Charlie Ripley were awarded the R.F. Legget Medal, the most senior and prestigious CGS award.
Ripley recalls:
At the time I was at Harvard, Arthur Casagrande was head of the graduate school program in soil mechanics and gave most of the lectures.
CGS Heritage Committee
Karl Terzaghi in the lab
(Credit: Norwegian Geotechnical Institute - NGI)
Terzaghi was a consulting engineer of international reputation and with a world-wide practice, who took a particular liking to Canadian projects.
Terzaghi gave only one course at the time –Engineering Geology. He would say, “These are your textbooks [his Theoretical Soil Mechanics, which had recently been published, and another book on geology by Arthur Holmes], read such and such.” Then his lectures wouldn’t include any of that material – they were practical case studies. We took copious notes. When it came to examination time, we had no idea what kind of questions he would ask, and all of us were in dread of the exam.
He did not shine in front of the class – just a venerable teacher, very positive about everything. It was a fascinating experience, but you did not have any feeling of closeness to him – his office was almost out of bounds. You see, Dr. Terzaghi was a very disciplined man. He realized that he had unusual gifts, and that he had to guard his time to devote to original research and preparation of his book Soil Mechanics in Engineering Practice.
Terzaghi the Engineer
Terzaghi was a consulting engineer of international reputation and with a worldwide practice, who took a particular liking to Canadian projects. Table 2 lists 21 of his assignments in Canada, based on compilations p`repared by Ripley and Walter Ferris, another former Terzaghi student.
Ripley recalls:
Terzaghi carefully selected his activities so as to devote maximum energy to his work and to his research, and accepted only a few assignments at any one time, even though his services were widely sought by innumerable engineers and organizations. In Terzaghi’s own words: “I rarely accepted a consulting assignment unless there were unusual difficulties involved or an accident had already occurred. Therefore I had unusual opportunities to become acquainted with the hazards and uncertainties involved with earthwork and tunnel engineering.”
On complex projects, Terzaghi insisted on having one or more representatives of his choice on site throughout the construction. He gave specific instructions to these individuals as to their function and authority. They were required to send detailed weekly reports to him and thereby be his eyes and ears about the progress of the project and the problems being met. He would send comments and criticisms of these reports back, so that they could more effectively perform their tasks.
He kept himself aware of new and innovative construction equipment and methods used in earthwork engineering and of cases involving failures. He did this by extensive literature search and reading of technical journals, as well as by consultation with the constructors with whom he had previously worked and with those on his current jobs. Mark Olsen of my [Ripley, Klohn & Leonoff] staff served as Terzaghi’s senior representative on the Daisy Lake and Terzaghi Dams. In Olsen’s words, “Terzaghi was a relentless pursuer of information”.
Terzaghi personally examined the soils and rock that would be encountered on his projects, not relying solely on the descriptions and laboratory test results presented by others in reports to him. He searched and reviewed published geologic reports on each project area. In many cases he consulted a competent geologist who was local to the project region.
Terzaghi was slow to deliberate on a matter, as opposed to reaching decisions quickly. He appeared to silently analyze his thoughts from more than one point of view before making a comment or stating his opinion. In meetings with my staff and the client he was not autocratic but would willingly change his opinion if presented with evidence to the contrary. He relied on those providing him with data to brief him fully and honestly, and to correct any misunderstanding that he may have had about an issue.
NAME
Kirkbride, David S, 1938–1939
Hardy, Robert (Bob) M.* 1939–1940
Peterson, Robert (Bob)* 1940–1941
Ripley, Charles F. (Charlie)* 1945–1946
McBride, Ian F.B. 1946–1947
Nelson, James C. 1946–1947
Peckover, Frederick L. (Lionel)* 1946–1947
Brandley, Reinard W. 1946–1948
Schriever, William 1947–1948
Ringheim, Andrew S. (Stewart) 1948–1949
Spence, Robert A. 1948–1949
Lea, Norman Dole* 1949–1950
Benedict, Burr D., Jr. 1949–1950
Robinsky, Eli I.* 1950–1951
Hallawell, Robert James 1952–1953
Maduke, Bohdan Ivan 1952–1953
Matich, M.A.J. (Fred) 1952–1953
Loomis, Raymond H. 1952–1953
Vermillon, W.H. (Bill) 1952–1953
Wiseman, Gdalyah 1952–1955
Osler, John C. 1953–1954
Rivard, Philip (Phil)* 1954–1955
Ferris, Walter R. 1954–1955
Dufour, Marcel 1955–1956
Chevalier, Roland 1955–1958
Table 1. Terzaghi’s Canadian Students at Harvard University (* a Lives Lived Memoir is available in the CGS Virtual Archives, https://www.cgs.ca/virtual_ archives_lives_lived.php)
Terzaghi in his Harvard classroom (Credit: Terzaghi Family)
YEAR PROJECT
CLIENT
1945 Report on foundation conditions at the site of a pulp mill in Marathon, Ontario. Stone and Webster Engineering
1945 Report on present condition of the Beauharnois Dyke System near Montréal. Beauharnois Light and Power
1946 Report on means for draining a site for new office building near the St. Lawrence River in Québec.
1946 Subsoil exploration and design of foundations for a pulp and paper mill, Port Alberni, BC
1948 Report on foundation conditions at the site of proposed pulp mills, Nanaimo and Campbell River, BC
Unknown
H.A. Simons Ltd.
H.A. Simons Ltd.
1949 Reconnaissance of proposed dam sites on the Nechako River, near Kitimat, BC International Engineering (IECO)
1950 to 1955 Consulting on Bridge River Power Development on Seton Lake, near Lillooet, BC BC Electric
1951 to 1952 Subsoil investigation and foundation design of Elk Falls pulp and paper mill, Duncan Bay, near Campbell River, BC
1951 to 1953 Design of drainage system in buried valley adjacent to Waneta Dam of Consolidated Mining and Smelting plant, Trail, BC
H.A. Simons Ltd.
Stone and Webster Engineering
1952 Consultant on design and construction of Kenney Dam, near Kitimat, BC Aluminum Company of Canada
1953 Expert witness in connection with destruction of Whatshan power station by a landslide, Upper Arrow Lake, BC
1953 Report on causes and cures of landslide near Quesnel, BC
1954 Report on roof failure in brine field, Windsor, Ontario
1954 to 1957 Consultant on design and construction of Cheakamus (Daisy Lake) Dam, near Squamish, BC
1954 to 1955 Design of foundations for the Crown Zellerbach converting plant, in Richmond, B C
Client unknown
Pacific Great Eastern Railway
Canadian Industries Ltd. (CIL)
BC Electric
H.A. Simons Ltd.
1954 to 1963 Consultant on the design of South Saskatchewan Dam. (Gardiner Dam) Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA)
1955 to 1960 Design and construction of proposed Bridge River (Terzaghi) Dam, near Lillooet, BC
1955 Report on landslide at delta front at Woodfibre in Howe Sound, BC
BC Electric
Client unknown
1955 Report on construction of Barnhart cofferdam, St. Lawrence Waterway Mannix Construction Ltd.
1959 Design of the earth dam portion of the Seymour Falls Dam, Vancouver, BC
Greater Vancouver Water District (GVWD)
1959 Review and advise on seepage issue, Cleveland Dam, Vancouver BC Ripley Klohn Leonoff and GVWD
Terzaghi the Person
Much has been written on Terzaghi’s selfdiscipline, powers of observation, exceptional memory, and candor (see, for example, Goodman 1998). Ripley recalls some lesser-known personal traits of his friend.
Terzaghi's lifestyle was one of simplicity, frugality and practicality. The hotel he stayed at in Vancouver was the Devonshire, a small modest hotel, diagonally across from the prestigious Hotel Vancouver. The hotel staff came to know his needs. They always gave him a room with a north view towards the mountains. It had a “Murphy bed" that folded into the wall, so that he had plenty of work space during the day. They provided him with a folding table consisting of a large sheet of plywood supported on sawhorses, so that he could spread out large drawings during the day.
His activities in non-working hours were carefully selected. He avoided social functions in favor of a
Terzaghi at the Salmon Glacier, near Stewart, BC (1956) (Credit, Klohn Crippen Berger)
Table 2: Twenty-one of Terzaghi’s consulting projects in Canada
quiet time, and usually had his meals alone. When he had finished work in the evening at his hotel, he loved to walk in Stanley Park. On site visits to Cleveland and Seymour Dams he would take time for a walk among the large trees at Cleveland and within the moss-laden cedar rainforest at Seymour. Each trip to Port Alberni included a stroll through the virgin rainforest at Cathedral Grove. He spent a vacation hiking in Mt. Robson Park [in eastern BC], studying the morainal deposits at and downstream of the glacier terminus. In the company of his son Eric, Juul Hvorslev, my brother Herbert, and myself, he spent several days in the area of the Salmon Glacier near Stewart BC [in northwestern BC], studying the glacier and glacial deposits.
Terzaghi showed great interest in people he met who were dedicated and accomplished in their work, whether they were "blue or white collared." He admired a drill foreman, Ralph Smith, for his ingenuity, good sense and reliability in his work. He admired George Smith, a burly surveyor who had run an accurate set of levels over the rugged Coast Range of mountains in BC. He admired colleagues like Howard Simons [of H.A Simons Ltd.] for his dedication to superior engineering and Adolph Ackerman, for taking an unpopular stand against policies that compromised his ethics. He showed great compassion for his French colleague Andre Coyne, in a warm and consoling letter to him after the collapse of the Malpasset Dam [in France]
He was a consulting engineer of international reputation and with a world-wide practice who took a particular liking to Canadian projects.
Closure
Terzaghi’s contributions to Canadian geotechnique, at a time when our country was starting to develop its own capabilities in this field, were numerous and significant. He was a consulting engineer of international reputation and with a world-wide practice who took a particular liking to Canadian projects, working closely with former students like Charlie Ripley. In the words of another of his students, and later colleague and co-author, Ralph Peck, “Canada, particularly British Columbia, was Terzaghi’s favourite place to work: the compelling beauty of the land and the shear audacity of the engineering problems were irresistible attractions.”
Acknowledgements
We express our sincere thanks to several individuals, beside Charlie Ripley, who wrote about Terzaghi’s life and helped preserve a record of his contributions. Among them Walter Ferris (1924–2020); Cyril Leonoff (1925–2016); Richard Goodman (1935–2025), Suzanne Lacasse, Ellen Radum and their NGI colleagues; Jim Withiam, Michael Bennett, Enrique Farfan, and Sergei Terzaghi (see
About Charles (Charlie) Ripley
April/May 2025 issue of GEOSTRATA, published by the GeoInstitute of ASCE). A special thank you to Fred Matich (MAJM Corporation Ltd.), a former student of Karl Terzaghi and a tireless contributor to the CGS Heritage Committee.
Bibliography
Geotechnical News. 1997. Geotechnical Engineering in Canada – An Historical Review. Geotechnical News Commemorative Edition. BiTech Publishers. Available from https://www.cgs.ca/pdf/heritage/Geotech%20 Eng%20in%20canada%20-%20An%20 historical%20review.pdf.
Goodman, R.E. 1998. Karl Terzaghi, The Engineer as Artist. ASCE Press. Leonoff, C. (ed.). 1994. A Dedicated Team – Klohn Leonoff Consulting Engineers 1951–1991. At the time of writing (July 2025), Cyril Leonoff’s 1994 article and the Geotechnical News Commemorative Edition (1997) are freely available in digital form and may be consulted for more detailed accounts on Terzaghi’s life by Ripley. The book by Goodman (1998) is available in soft cover or e-book format from the American Society of Civil Engineers, ASCE.
Charles (Charlie) F. Ripley, born in Lethbridge, Alberta, obtained his civil engineering degree at the University of Alberta in 1944 under Professors Ibrahim F. Morrison and Robert M. Hardy. He took graduate soil mechanics studies at Harvard University under professors Arthur Casagrande and Karl Terzaghi in 1945–1946 and had great admiration for both. It is noteworthy that a portrait of Terzaghi always hung behind Charlie’s desk.
Ripley started his career with the Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Administration (PFRA), as a senior assistant to Bob Peterson on the design and construction of irrigation dam projects in the Prairie Provinces. He left the PFRA In 1951 and founded Ripley and Associates in Vancouver, one of the earliest soil mechanics consulting firms in Canada. He remained with its successor, Ripley, Klohn & Leonoff, until 1970. This firm is now known as Klohn Crippen Berger and remains as a leading geotechnical consultancy in Canada.
Ripley participated actively in engineering organizations. As representative of the PFRA, he attended the first Canadian Soil Mechanics Conference (Canadian Geotechnical Conference) held in 1947 in Ottawa. He was founder of the Vancouver Soils Group in 1953, and a founding member of the Vancouver Island Geotechnical Group. Among other honours, in 1987 he was awarded the R.F. Legget Medal for his significant lifelong contributions to the geotechnical field in Canada.
According to his son Bruce, also a geotechnical engineer, Charlie Ripley “Absolutely loved engineering. He felt that engineers have responsibilities within society to do a fantastic job at their work and to be leaders within society. In his eighties, he was still going to the monthly engineering luncheons in Victoria. He liked hearing young engineers talk about their projects and he loved their enthusiasm. He would go and talk to them afterwards and inject even more enthusiasm into them.”
Charles (Charlie) Ripley (1922–2007)
INSTRUMENTATION AND MONITORING
Pierre Choquet, Instrumentation and Monitoring Editor
In this I&M no. 22, John P. Sully provides additional information and research work results on the push-in pressure cell, which was the subject of the I&M no. 21 article. Among others, he discusses the temperature effect on the readings of the pressure cell, the magnitude of the overread, and the stabilization time. Pressure cells are notoriously affected by temperature changes as was also discussed in two articles of John Dunnicliff’s Geotechnical Instrumentation News (GIN) in Geotechnical News of March 2000 and December 2005 (https://cgs.ca/instrumentation_news.html), although the magnitude of the correction may vary depending on various construction details of the pressure cell such as the thickness and the nature of the hydraulic fluid. Please let me know your comments and article suggestions et à bientôt. Pierre
Push-In Total Stress Cell Research at The University Of British Columbia
John P. Sully
The spade-like push-in total stress cells proved to be a reasonable approach for providing interpreted estimates of the in situ horizontal stress at the clay sites tested.
Introduction
The recent publication by Rivera and Choquet in the Spring 2025 issue of Canadian Geotechnique (The Push-In Pressure Cell to Measure Horizontal In-Situ Stresses in Soils, Canadian Geotechnique, Volume 6, No. 1, pp. 57–61) was of considerable interest, as I worked with the late Professor Richard Campanella in the late 1980s on some research related to the use of these stress cells for the measurement of in situ horizontal stresses.
After I sent several comments to Pierre Choquet, the Instrumentation and Monitoring Editor, he invited me to submit some additional details of the work at The University of British Columbia (UBC), for which I was happy to oblige. While the results obtained at UBC were not overly conclusive regarding the in-situ measurement of horizontal stress, there were some interesting details that are discussed below.
The quality of the figures may be lower than normal for a journal publication, but these had to be scanned from existing documents as I no longer have the actual data.
Temperature calibration of the push-in total stress cell
In the late 1980s, Professor Richard Campanella purchased several push-in total stress cells (TSC) from Soil Instruments of the UK and had them installed successfully at three sites around the Lower Mainland of British Columbia. Prior to installation, the TSCs were calibrated in the laboratory.
Because the total stress cells are oil-filled and sealed, the different temperature characteristics of the cell components will cause the baseline pressure to be sensitive to variations in temperature (Felio and Bauer 1986). This was recognized by the manufacturer, but no data were provided to evaluate the effects. Furthermore, at that time, none of the case studies presented in the literature provided data corrected for temperature effects. Platinum RTD temperature sensors were installed in several of the cells at UBC. Each of the TSCs was calibrated in a water-filled temperature-controlled pressurized chamber. This allowed calibration of the stress cell and the pore pressure sensor for changes in both temperature and chamber pressure. Loading/ unloading pressures and cooling/warming temperature cycles over periods of 12–24 hours
were performed. Hydrostatic pressures from zero to 200 kPa and temperatures from zero to 20oC were used.
All the TSCs had different internal baseline pressures, and the sensitivity of the baseline pressure varied from 0.14 to 1.35 kPa/oC, with an average of about 0.5 kPa/oC (Sully and Campanella 1989). The generalized form of the temperature correction on the measured cell pressure was as follows:
σTSC = σ m – σb – [(TR – Tm)BT )]
where:
σTSC= Temperature corrected in-ground net blade total pressure (kPa)
σ m = Measured blade pressure after installation of TSC at in-ground temperature (kPa)
σb= Baseline blade pressure of cell in air at reference temperature (kPa) (applied to maintain separation of metal sheets on sides of cell)
TR = Reference temperature for TSC (oC)
T m = Measured in-situ temperature at time after TSC installation (oC)
BT = Blade pressure temperature coefficient for TSC (kPa/oC)
The temperature and pressure sensitivity of one total stress cell (TSC1542) is presented in Figure 1. For all practical purposes, the temperature correction for a specific TSC is constant at all confining pressures but varies from one cell to the next (Figure 2). Table 1 summarizes the temperature calibration results from all nine TSCs purchased and tested. Since temperature changes of 10oC or more may occur between pre- and post-installation conditions, temperature corrections may be appreciable, particularly where low stresses are being measured.
The temperature and pressure calibrations were performed prior to installation and after recovery of the TSCs. Small changes in both the baseline pressure and temperature coefficient were noted upon recovery. The recovery calibration was used for data interpretation. All temperature corrections to the measured blade pressures were made with respect to the equilibrium ground temperature, as measured on the RTD sensor.
TSC Installation
Rivera and Choquet (2025) discuss TSC results from blades installed in the base of a pre-drilled
borehole. At UBC, the Geotechnical Research Vehicle (20 tonne CPT truck) was used to push in the total stress cells. To avoid cell breakage, a dummy TSC was pre-pushed to about 0.5–1.0 m above the target depth prior to pushing the TSC. The dummy push was performed with a dilatometer and DMT readings (thrust, p0, p1, p2) taken every 0.2 m depth interval.
The TSCs were installed at three sites in the Lower Mainland of British Columbia: Lower 232nd and 200th Streets in Langley, and Strong Pit in Aldergrove (Sully 1991). Only 232nd Street and Strong Pit data are discussed.
Evaluation of TSC data
As discussed by Rivera and Choquet (2025), the undrained penetration of the spade cell into a cohesive soil will provide final horizontal and pore water pressures (after dissipation and relaxation). The pore pressures should normally agree with the equilibrium ground water conditions; the horizontal stress is commonly more than the initial in situ horizontal value due to disturbance during blade insertion. At the UBC sites, problems
were experienced with saturation of the pore pressure filter due to its rather inconvenient location on the base plate of the cell. At many of the installations, the measured pore water pressures were not consistent with the known ground conditions.
In stiff clays, Tedd and Charles (1983) suggest a practical method of correcting the final equilibrium lateral stress by subtracting onehalf of the undrained shear strength (Su) of the clay from the final dissipated horizontal stress sTSC. For clays with undrained shear strengths less than about 30 kPa, no correction is suggested. Hence, the in situ total horizontal stress is given by
sh = s*TSC = sTSC – 0.5(Su) (Su > 30 kPa)
A review of all the available published data in clays up to 1998 where stress history (OCR) and ko (from TSC) were available suggested the following relationship, based on the Tedd and Charles (1983) recommended correction of 0.5(Su):
(k0)*TSC = 0.581(OCR)0.432
and
k0 ~ (k0)*TSC = (s*TSC – uo)/s’v
At that time, we also investigated relating the stress over-read on the blade cell to an easily referenced modulus (Gmax from seismic CPT) based on the following simplification that the stress increment is elastic (Finn 1963; Tedd and Charles 1983):
Ds ~ 0.025 [Eu / (1 – m2)] or
Ds ~ 0.1*G
*Arbitrary temperature and baseline pressure at the start of calibration
**Temperature coefficient for both cooling and warming cycles
Table 1. Temperature calibration results for TSCs
since m = 0.5 and E u = 3G. Based on the data from Strong Pit, the over-read correction was equivalent to 0.1% of Gmax. However, there
Figure 1. Temperature calibration for TSC1542. Figure 2. Temperature calibration for all TSCs.
Figure 3. Variation in measured pressures with time at Strong Pit
was not enough data from other sites to verify this relationship.
Time is also required after installation for the cell and pore pressures to reach equilibrium. Based on field data at the two clay sites where the TSCs were installed, periods of as much as 2 months were required for full dissipation of the excess pore pressure and stress (Figure 3 for Strong Pit and Figure 4 for Lr. 232nd Street).
The dissipation of the total stress data was assessed using a power function of the form:
sTSC(t) = ait–b
where sTSC(t) is the time-dependent blade pressure, t is the time after installation, aI is the value of sTSC immediately after installation (t = 1), and b is the exponent that controls the rate of relaxation/dissipation. At both sites tested, both parameters were very different (Figure 5), but increased linearly with depth (Sully and Campanella 1989). These parameters may be related to certain soil characteristics or even the soil stress history.
Conclusions
The spade-like push-in total stress cells proved to be a reasonable approach for providing interpreted estimates of the in situ horizontal stress at the clay sites tested. Due to the fragile construction, TSCs are not ideally suited to installation in granular soils, as breakage at the connection between the oil-filled cell and the upper essentially solid metal plate is a common occurrence for even limited push-in distances. Even using a dummy TSC pre-push and taking extreme care, successful installation was only achieved at the clay sites, but not at any sand site.
Considerable wait times are required after installation for the excess horizontal stress and pore pressure to dissipate. The Strong Pit and Lr. 232nd Street data stabilized about 2 months after installation, although most of the stabilization had already taken place after 20 to 30 days.
An important consideration when utilizing the in situ pressure measurements from TSCs is the fact that the over-read correction can be a large percentage of the actual value being measured (or can even be larger than the interpreted in situ horizontal stress for installations at shallow depths). Based solely on this aspect, the TSC is probably not an ideal instrument for the measurement of in situ stress conditions. However, once installed and at equilibrium, the TSC may be well-suited to the measurement of in situ (horizontal) stress changes due to external changes in vertical/ horizontal loading.
At Strong Pit, where the stress history could be well-defined and related to quarrying operations, the stress correction of 50% of the undrained shear strength (0.5(Su)) was found to provide a good representation of the best estimate of the in situ horizontal stress, even though the correction itself represented up to 50% of the final interpreted horizontal stress. This is a concern with the use of this type of measurement and is associated with the use of all full-displacement probes for prediction of pre-penetration in situ conditions.
It should be noted that the TSC does not allow the measurement of in situ effective horizontal stress, but does allow some form of that to be calculated based on corrected values of the total horizontal stress using the pore pressure transducer of the TSC. Saturation of the TSC pore pressure transducer is not easy to achieve, so the in situ equilibrium pore pressure should also be established by a separate piezometer to confirm the TSC measurements.
Professor Campanella did not pursue any further testing with the push-in total stress cells primarily due to equipment costs and installation problems in granular soils.
Acknowledgement
The work discussed above was performed by the author under the supervision and guidance of the late Professor Dick Campanella at The University of British Columbia; Dick’s interest and mentoring/ enthusiasm were greatly appreciated.
References
Felio, G.Y. and Bauer, G.E. 1986. Factors affecting the performance of a pneumatic earth pressure cell. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 9(2): 102–106. doi:10.1520/GTJ11036J.
Finn, W.D.L. 1963. Boundary value problems of soil mechanics. Journal of the Soil Mechanics and Foundations Division, ASCE, 89(5): 39–72. doi:10.1061/JSFEAQ.00005.
Rivera, I., and Choquet, P. 2025. The push-in pressure cell to measure horizontal in situ stresses in soils. Canadian Geotechnique, 6(1): 57–61.
Sully, J.P. 1991. In situ measurement of lateral stress during full-displacement penetration tests. Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, September, 485 p.
Sully, J.P., and Campanella, R.G. 1989. Lateral stress measurements in a glaciomarine clay. In Proceedings of the 25th Conference on Quaternary Engineering Geology, Edinburgh, September. Geological Society of London. Tedd, P., and Charles, J.A. 1983. Evaluation of push-in pressure cell results in stiff clay. In Proceedings of ISIT, Paris. Vol. 2, pp. 579–584.
John P. Sully (jsully@jocarsu.ca) is a Principal at Jocarsu Consultants Inc. of Richmond, BC.
Figure 4. Time dependence of blade pressures at Lr. 232nd Street.
Figure 5. α and β profiles at Strong Pit and Lr. 232nd Street
PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE
Seán Mac Eoin, Professional Practice Editor
In the past 30 years, there have been innumerable technical advances in the geotechnical field. One area, however, that hasn’t changed much, if at all, is the value of “project consulting boards” (also known as “review boards”) for the design and construction of large engineering projects. Al Imrie, former Principal Geotechnical Engineer with BC Hydro, and co-author with the late Evert Hoek of the following article, feels that this article is still relevant 30 years after it was first published in the August 1995 issue of International Water Power & Dam Construction. The CGS Professional Practice Committee concurs and, with permission from IWP&DC, is pleased to reprint it, with a few changes for clarification.
Guidelines to Establish Project Consulting Boards
E. Hoek and A.S. Imrie for the CGS Professional Practice Committee
A Consulting or Review Board should be composed of a number of internationally recognised authorities in several disciplines. Its purpose should be to provide an objective, balanced and impartial view of the overall design and construction of a project.
Introduction
The design and construction of large civil engineering projects, such as dams, bridges, water supply tunnels and hydropower projects, commonly extend over five to 10 years and cost hundreds of million dollars. The Owner of such a project typically establishes a Consulting Board or Review Board of independent experts to advise on technical issues and to monitor the progress of design and construction. The following article sets out some guidelines on establishing such a Board.
The guidance is based on the first author’s experience as a member of several Boards over the past 15 years and the second author’s experience in working for a knowledgeable Owner that has used such Boards for the past 30 years.
A Board should be composed of a number of internationally recognised authorities in several disciplines. Its purpose should be to provide an objective, balanced and impartial view of the overall design and construction
of a project. The Board should not be used as a substitute for normal consulting services because its members typically do not have the time to acquire all the detailed knowledge necessary to provide direct consulting options. Ideally, the Board should ask the Owner’s engineers, consultants and project managers: “Have you considered this alternative?” rather than the Owner asking the Board to respond to, for example, a request such as “Please provide recommendations on the best tunnel alignment.”
In some developing countries, however, the Board can become more involved in detailed engineering if an Owner does not have a strong, knowledgeable engineering department or is not assisted by a competent engineering consultant. This situation can arise when large financing organisations, such as the World Bank, are not involved in the project or country.
When the Owner’s design team wishes to seek advice on basic design issues from Board members, this should be done informally rather than during Board meetings. Doing so will reduce the possibility of important overall concepts being missed because of an agenda overloaded with relatively minor design details. In most cases, Board members are more than willing to discuss design details in informal meetings and, if necessary, to provide written comments or send copies of related papers after they have returned home.
Board Composition
In our experience, the most effective Boards are very small, with two to four members carefully chosen to cover each of the major disciplines involved in the project. For example, in the case of a large hydropower project involving a concrete gravity dam, an underground powerhouse and several kilometres of tunnels, the Board could consist of the following:
• A geologist or engineering geologist with experience in the type of ground conditions present at the project site. The experience is particularly important when unusual or difficult geological conditions are likely to be encountered, such as karst features, thermal springs or major faults.
• A rock engineering specialist with experience in dam foundations, tunnel and underground powerhouse design and construction, and in rock slope stability problems.
• A hydraulics engineer with experience in flood routing, pressure tunnel design and optimisation of flow through intakes and outlets.
• Depending on the nature and size of the job, it may be appropriate to add a “generalist” civil engineer with a good background in layouts, scheduling and construction techniques that may be critical in a large or complex project. This Board member could be a former Chief Engineer of a major firm or agency.
The most suitable type of Board member is a mature engineer or geologist with an established technical reputation and with wide practical experience. Personality is also critical, since an effective Board consists of individuals unafraid of stating their opinions but who, on the other hand, do not attempt to dominate with dogmatic or irrational behaviour. Therefore,
Example of TOR for a Consulting Board for the stabilization of a potential landslide behind a dam. ITEMS 1-5
1. Review the morphology, geology, surveillance results and other information relevant to the potential slide.
2. On a priority basis, assess and advise on the ssignificance of the movements recorded to date and the potential for a large, fast landslide.
3. Recommend to the Owner any additional investigations considered desirable.
4. Review the available seismic information including the probability of major earthquakes and advise on their possible effect on the stability of any potential slide.
5. Review the present surveillance system and procedures, recommending any changes considered desirable.
when an Owner is establishing a Board, it is important to ask each potential member not only if they wish to work on the Board but also if they are willing to work with other specific potential members. This approach tends to eliminate persons with a reputation for domination or inability to compromise on judgmental issues. An ideal Board is selfregulating, not requiring a chairperson.
Board members should, if possible, be independent of major consulting, contracting or equipment companies. When the ideal potential member is employed by such organisations, it should be clearly stated in the letter of invitation that the organisation for which he or she works will be excluded from any major decision-making role in the project.
In retaining a Board, it is important that the Owner provide Terms of Reference for the Board to define its responsibilities, as well as those of the Owner and design team. The TOR should be short, simple and articulate, such as in the accompanying 10-point example
Example
TOR. ITEMS 6-10
for a hydropower project that involves stabilising a potential landslide just behind a dam. Although cost is certainly important to an Owner, the primary function of any Board should be to ensure that what is being designed and built is appropriately safe both for the Owner and the public.
Reporting
The Board should report directly to the Owner’s senior technical officer, even if other organisations are involved in making travel arrangements, preparing reports and acting as hosts during site visits and meetings. The title of the senior technical officer (e.g., Chief Engineer) and the chain of command may vary, but ideally that person will be at arm’s length from the project design team. The design team may retain specialist consultants to guide them on specific issues that are not within the scope of the Board.
A summary report should be prepared, signed and presented by the Board before it leaves from a site visit or a meeting. The report may
6. Review and agree upon any appropriate remedial action propposed byt the Owner, such as forming a drainage tunnel and/or drain holes or to recommend any alternative that they may deem appropriate to increase the stability of the slope.
7. Review and advise on any remedial measures adopted and the significance of the surveillance results obtained during and after their construction.
8. Meet and discuss the potential landslide with the responsible government officer and representatives plus the Onwer's senier executives, as and when requested by the Owner.
9. Meet with the Owner and visit the site at such intervales as are appropriate and provide a brief written report to the Owner after each such meeting and/or visit.
10. Provide the Owner with a final report giving the Consulting Board's assessment, the necessity for and effectiveness of any remedial measures taken and the recommended future surveillance.
range in length, depending on the stage of the project and problems encountered. Occasionally, a supplementary report may be requested from one or more of the Board members if more detailed investigations or analyses are necessary.
In some cases, to help reinforce the authority and credibility of the Owner’s senior technical officer, it is advisable to convene a short meeting with government officials or the Owner’s senior executives so that the Board can
Except at the beginning of the project, when more frequent meetings may be required, semiannual Board site visits or meetings are generally adequate for major, long duration projects. Occasionally, individual Board members may be asked to make a special site visit to inspect a particularly critical component or phase of the project. In such cases, the individual member acts as a Board representative and is obliged to keep other Board members fully informed of
Data books should be prepared for the Board and sent for its review prior to meetings. Even if the Board members are only able to scan the latest data enroute to a meeting, the advance information will assist them in addressing the major project issues. The data book should be prepared with the aim of explaining “this is what we have done, are doing and what we propose”, so as to obtain the Board’s critique.
It is also important for the Owner to include in the preface of the data book a list of key issues that it wants the Board to specifically address in the meeting and comment on in its report. The list should not limit the Board’s scope associated with the safety, design and construction issues in the project, but help focus both the meeting and the Board’s report. In subsequent meetings, it is important that the data book includes a section on the actions taken on the Board’s
For the first and at least some of the subsequent meetings, it is essential for the Board to spend time at the project site to get an appreciation of the project layout, geology, potential problems and work progress. Such time on site provides the Board members with firsthand project information and helps further focus the office meetings that follow. A typical agenda for a Board visit could be:
Day 1: Visit site and inspect critical problem areas, control facilities, field laboratories and other areas of relevance to the project.
Day 2: Meet with the Owner’s senior technical officer and representatives of the major consulting groups for a project briefing. Receive briefing notes and hear presentations
from the senior technical officer and specialists in each major discipline.
• Day 3: Review reports and the data book, discuss specific aspects with project specialists. The Board may split into individual task groups or it may wish to convene small meetings of specialists to discuss particular topics.
• Day 4: As for previous day, plus preparation of a summary Board report.
• Day 5: Presentation of the Board report to the senior technical officer and representatives of project consultants. Brief meeting with government and/or senior executives, if appropriate.
Summary
Over the years, several clients have enquired about how to establish a Consulting or Review Board and, in the opinion of the authors, a Board is highly desirable, if not mandatory, to help a project succeed. Those involved in the design and construction of a major project can often become so involved in the details of their work that they find it difficult to stand back and take an impartial view of alternative approaches.
The Board, with its requirement to be impartial and its cumulative years of practical experience on similar projects, can usually pin-point design deficiencies and construction problems quickly. Once those problems have been brought to the attention of the Owner, it is surprising how often an effective solution can be found.
Even in cases in which a project is controlled by a very good engineer and is being built by a competent contractor, an occasional independent review can provide the Owner with the assurance that all is in order. This assurance can be important to the Owner in dealing with government and the public.
Evert Hoek (1933–2024) was an internationally recognized rock mechanics academic, author, and consultant who worked on projects and review boards around the world. For the latter part of his career, he was based in Vancouver, BC.
Al Imrie spent most of his career with BC Hydro. On retiring from that organization, he consulted as a member of several review boards.
Spotlight on Young Professors: A Passion for Teaching and Research
This interview with Kshama Roy for the CGS Education Committee was conducted by David Evans, Mrinmoy Kanungo, and Arjun Paul and took place in May 2025. The Education Committee recognizes the role that educators play in shaping the future of the geotechnical field. We are delighted to present this series of interviews featuring recently appointed professors, where they share their insights into teaching geotechnical subjects to undergraduate students.
Interviewee Introduction
Dr. Kshama Roy is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering at Memorial University of Newfoundland. Originally from Bangladesh, he completed his undergraduate studies there before moving to Canada to pursue both his master’s and Ph.D. at Memorial University. In his current role, Dr. Roy teaches undergraduate and graduate courses and supervises research students in geotechnical engineering.
His research focuses on soil–structure interaction, deep foundations, and numerical modeling, with a particular emphasis on linear infrastructure. Dr. Roy is involved in several professional organizations, including the Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Young Pipeliners Association of Canada, and the Canadian Dam Association.
He has been recognized with several awards for his contributions to the field, including the CGS Early Achievement Award (2023), APEGA’s Early Accomplishment Award (2024), and the Bright Spark Lecture Award from the International Society for Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering (2024). Through his work in research, teaching, and professional service, Dr. Roy contributes to the ongoing development of geotechnical engineering in both academic and applied settings.
Interview Questions
CGS Education Committee: What first attracted you to the geotechnical field?
Kshama Roy: What initially drew me to geotechnical engineering was its complexity and its undeniable connection to the natural world. I’ve always been fascinated by the interaction between human-built structures and the unpredictable nature of the ground beneath us. The ability to design
solutions that respond to uncertainty — especially under the pressures of climate change — felt both intellectually stimulating and socially relevant.
My fascination with geotechnical engineering began during my undergraduate studies. Later, during my graduate studies at Memorial University of Newfoundland, I delved deeper into soil constitutive modeling and soil–structure interaction, which solidified my passion for understanding how geotechnical principles can enhance infrastructure resilience in the face of climate change. What further encourages me in this field is the realization that soil underpins almost all — if not all — infrastructure systems. Its inherent variability and the complexity of soil behaviour introduce significant uncertainty, which makes the challenge of understanding and managing it both essential and rewarding.
As Professor Morgenstern (2000) once noted, the assurance of geotechnical performance would be enhanced if the field shifted from the promise of certainty to the analysis of uncertainty.
CGSEC: Who are your main mentors and influences?
KR: I’ve been fortunate to have exceptional mentors who have shaped both my academic and professional journey. During my graduate studies, I was guided by outstanding academic advisors — Dr. Bipul Hawlader at Memorial University of Newfoundland, Dr. Shawn Kenny at Carleton University, and Dr. Ian Moore at Queen’s University. Each of them played a foundational role in shaping my technical expertise while also instilling in me the importance of approaching research with curiosity, integrity, and purpose. In addition to technical guidance, I was fortunate
to have several leadership mentors at Memorial University who helped me hone my interpersonal skills and navigate the broader responsibilities of being a wellrounded professional.
In parallel, my industry experience has been equally influential. Working at DNV and Northern Crescent Inc. provided the opportunity to collaborate with pioneers in the infrastructure field, whose practical insights enriched my engineering perspective. I’ve also had the privilege of working under two remarkable managers — Mr. Adeel Raza at Northern Crescent Inc. and Mr. Joe Bratton at DNV — who consistently believed in my ideas, no matter how unconventional. They supported me in turning those ideas into impact-driven outcomes and ultimately empowered me to make a meaningful difference.
Beyond formal mentorship, my peers within the Canadian Geotechnical Society have played an invaluable role in my growth. Through our shared work, discussions, and collaborations, they’ve continually challenged my thinking and expanded my view of what geotechnical engineering can achieve.
Looking back, I’m deeply grateful to all these mentors and colleagues for their support and belief in my potential. They’ve not only helped me grow — they’ve inspired me to mentor others and give back to the community that has given me so much.
CGSEC: Why did you choose to become an educator in the geotechnical field?
KR: Becoming an educator allows me to combine two passions: advancing knowledge and supporting the growth of future engineers. The classroom offers a direct platform to teach and inspire students. It’s also an opportunity to integrate real-world challenges into education,
creating a learning environment that is dynamic, applied, and meaningful.
Education is a powerful tool to bridge research and practice. As an adjunct professor at both Memorial University of Newfoundland and the University of Manitoba — while working full-time in industry — I saw firsthand how mentoring students could amplify the impact of innovations. Later, while working as a sessional instructor at the University of Calgary, I made a conscious effort to bring industry applications into the classroom. The overwhelmingly positive feedback I received from students during that experience shifted my perspective on teaching and its potential to influence future engineers.
After working in industry for eight years, I recognized a significant gap between academia and practice — particularly in areas where innovation is still needed. While I tried to contribute to bridging that gap from within industry, time constraints and business demands made it difficult to pursue innovative ideas in a sustained way. I realized that academia would offer the flexibility and focus necessary to explore those ideas more deeply.
The classroom offers a direct platform to teach and inspire students. It’s also an opportunity to integrate real-world challenges into education, creating a learning environment that is dynamic, applied, and meaningful.
In addition, I observed that many new graduates lack an industry-oriented mindset when applying their research. I felt that by becoming an educator, I could make a more direct and lasting contribution by helping shape the next generation of engineers. I see this role not just as a career shift, but as my way of giving back to the community. That’s why I made the bold decision to transition into academia — despite taking a significant salary cut — because I believe this is where I can have the greatest impact.
CGSEC: How do you give back to the community and what actions do you encourage others to take to give back?
KR: Giving back has always been a core part of my journey — from volunteering
with the Canadian Geotechnical Society (CGS) to mentoring young professionals. I was the founding Chair of the CGS Young Professionals Committee, an initiative designed to foster networking, professional development, and engagement among early-career members. I regularly give invited talks and motivational speeches to students and professionals and actively participate in outreach efforts to raise awareness about careers in engineering. Through these activities, I encourage others to give back by mentoring, engaging with professional societies, and sharing their own experiences.
I’ve been fortunate to serve in several other leadership roles within CGS, including Chair of the CFG Student Awards Committee, Vice-
Chair of the Education Committee, Director of the Southern Alberta Chapter, and Volunteer Coordinator for CFEM 2023. I also served as Technical Co-Chair for GeoCalgary 2022. These roles have not only deepened my connection to the geotechnical community but also allowed me to contribute meaningfully to its growth and inclusivity. Beyond this, I have taken on numerous leadership roles within the pipeline industry as well.
Beyond the profession, community service is deeply personal to me. Along with my family, I led the creation of the Kshirode Chandra Roy Memorial Fund in memory of my late father. Through this initiative, we act as moral parents for seven underprivileged female students, supporting their full educational and living expenses. We have also symbolically adopted two elephants, one rhinoceros, and one giraffe as part of our ongoing commitment to wildlife conservation.
Ultimately, my desire to give back — both to the profession and to the broader community — was a driving force in my decision to return to academia after eight years in industry.
CGSEC: What challenges and opportunities will geotechnical engineering face in the next five years, and how can universities prepare students for them?
KR: Climate change, aging infrastructure, and the rise of data-driven design are challenging us to rethink traditional engineering approaches. However, it’s important to recognize that these traditional methods are grounded in mechanics and theory — they should not be replaced but rather enhanced through new concepts and technological
advances. I believe that integrating mechanics-based engineering approaches — such as analytical solutions, numerical analysis, and laboratory/field testing — with data-driven methods leveraging tools like GIS and remote sensing will play a crucial role in addressing 21st century civil engineering challenges, especially those related to climate change.
Universities can prepare students by fostering adaptability, promoting interdisciplinary collaboration, and introducing emerging technologies. It is also essential to teach students how to evaluate risk and communicate uncertainty effectively. While terms like sustainability and resiliency are widely discussed, we must help students develop a clear understanding of what these concepts truly mean for engineers — and how to meaningfully incorporate them into practice: not by replacing traditional approaches, but by improving upon them.
CGSEC: What are your future goals as a researcher, educator, and professional?
KR: As a researcher, my goal is to advance climate-resilient linear infrastructure by deepening our understanding of the mechanics of soil–structure interaction (SSI) under extreme conditions. My research program focuses on reducing risks to infrastructure caused by natural hazards through a thorough investigation of the interactions between these hazards and infrastructure systems. I aim to develop sustainable solution alternatives through a transdisciplinary approach. I also aspire to build an advanced SSI research team capable of addressing the most critical challenges to ensure the safety and resilience of our infrastructure.
As an educator, I strive to develop programs that connect students with real-world challenges, fostering innovation, critical thinking, and collaboration. I believe that bridging industry and academia is essential to tackling the complex civil engineering problems of the 21st century.
Professionally, I am committed to narrowing the gap between research and practice by bringing together the right people — industry partners and academic institutions — to solve problems collaboratively. My long-term vision is to integrate diverse ideas across civil engineering disciplines to discover innovative and transformative solutions for sustainable and resilient infrastructure. Ultimately, I hope to leverage my technical expertise and leadership skills to conduct meaningful research that creates lasting, positive impacts in our communities.
CGSEC: What advice would you give to other educators or those who wish to follow your path?
KR: Stay curious and stay grounded. Seek out mentors, both academic and nonacademic, but also take the time to mentor others. Be open to change and willing to adapt — whether it’s in your research direction, teaching style, or career path. Most importantly, remember that our field carries deep human and societal impact.
Embrace both theory and practice. Collaborate with industry to ensure your research addresses real-world challenges. Remain curious and don’t hesitate to take bold steps when they align with your long-term career goals. You may take a non-traditional path to reach your goals, but if you stay true to yourself and work hard, you’ll most likely achieve them.
