Evaluation of interface shear strength of composite liner system and stability analysis for a landfill lining system in Thailand

Bergado, Dennes T.; Ramana, G. V.; Sia, H.I.; Varun, _

doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.04.001

Cited by 97 publications

(42 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is worth mentioning the studies of Byrne et al (1992), Mitchell and Mitchell (1992) and Bergado et al (2006) in which they showed that the water content did not significantly affect the interface shear strength. The soil/GM interfaces were tested under dry conditions (Table 5) because both the compacted soil and geomembranes were highly impermeable and the interface would require a lot of time to be saturated.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Geomembranes are typically used as a hydraulic barrier and geotextiles protect it from damage that may occur in some situations, such as high normal stresses and angular soil particles. These types of interfaces have been previously studied by Giroud et al (1990), Koutsourais et al (1991), Giroud and Darrasse (1993), Gilbert and Byrne (1996), Stark et al (1996), Jones and Dixon (1998), Wasti and Özdüzgün (2001), Hebeler et al (2005), Bergado et al (2006), Pitanga et al (2009) and Kim and Frost (2011). The GT/GM interface was studied by means of the results of eighteen different interfaces using three types of geotextiles and five types of geomembranes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Bacas¹,

Cañizal²,

Konietzky³

2015

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper's scope is the shear interaction mechanisms of three critical geosynthetic interfaces (geotextile/geomembrane; drainage geocomposite/geomembrane and soil/geomembrane) typically used for lined containment facilities such as landfills. A large direct shear machine was used to carry out 159 geosynthetic interface tests. The results showed strain softening behaviour, a very small dilatancy, 0.1-1 mm, and non-linear failure envelopes at normal stress range of 25-500 kPa. The three types of interfaces present the same main interaction mechanisms: interlocking and friction. For geotextile/geomembrane and drainage geocomposite/geomembrane interfaces, the higher the asperity height, the higher the interface shear strength. Whereas for soil/geomembrane interfaces, the higher the soil shear strength, the higher the interface shear strength. The drainage geocomposite/geomembrane interface showed the lowest friction angles, followed by the geotextile/geomembrane and the soil/ geomembrane interfaces.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Bacas¹,

Cañizal²,

Konietzky³

2015

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is some data to support this concept. Bergado et al (2006) measured peel strengths of 705 and 542 N/m for dry and hydrated specimens of a W/NW NP GCL, respectively.…”

Section: Need For Conditioningmentioning

confidence: 99%

State-of-the-art report: GCL shear strength and its measurement – ten-year update

Fox

Stark

2015

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents an invited update to our 2004 state-of-the-art report and provides a comprehensive source of information on the shear strength and shear strength testing of geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs). Essential concepts of shear stress-displacement behavior and shear strength are presented, followed by detailed discussions on the laboratory measurement of the shear strength of GCLs and GCL interfaces. The paper also provides recommendations for the selection of design strength envelopes for stability analyses and checklists to assist users in the specification of GCL shear testing programs. North American practice is emphasized and discussions are focused primarily within the context of landfill bottom liner and cover systems. Conclusions and recommendations are provided with regard to GCL shear strength behavior and current GCL strength testing practice, improvements for GCL strength testing are suggested, and future research needs are identified.

show abstract

“…The dimensions of typical direct shear test specimen 300 9 300 mm. Though the shear strength of the soil/geosynthetic interface has been investigated by conducting other tests, such as tilt-table tests [8,9], the direct shear test is still the most common testing method [10][11][12][13]. The interface shear resistance of soil against geomembrane or geotextiles comes from the friction between soil and geosynthetic, because soil particles are not trapped into the small openings of geosynthetics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Experimental Investigation of Interface Behaviour of Different Types of Granular Soil/Geosynthetics

Choudhary

Krishna

2016

Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, influence of different types of soils and geosynthetics on soil/geosynthetics interface behaviouris investigated by direct shear and pullout tests. Three different types of cohesionless soils and three different types of geosynthetics materials are adopted for experimental investigation. A series of large direct shear tests and pullout tests were conducted to investigate the interface behaviour of soil/geosynthetics. The test equipment, soils, and geosynthetics properties are described. The influence of soil particle size (D 50 ) and geosynthetic structure are discussed by analysing tests results. Results are presented and discussed in terms of peak shear resistance, peak pullout resistance, interface friction angle, efficiency factors and interaction coefficient for different soils and geosynthetics. It could be seen that the interface friction angle from both direct shear and pullout tests linearly increases with increase in (D 50 ) of soil. The pullout interaction coefficients (C i ) are found to be in the range of 0.62-1.72 for different tests conditions.

show abstract

Evaluation of interface shear strength of composite liner system and stability analysis for a landfill lining system in Thailand

Cited by 97 publications

References 27 publications

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

State-of-the-art report: GCL shear strength and its measurement – ten-year update

Experimental Investigation of Interface Behaviour of Different Types of Granular Soil/Geosynthetics

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About