Technical Paper by R.P. Hillman and T.D. Stark
SHEAR STRENGTH CHARACTERISTICS OF PVC
GEOMEMBRANE-GEOSYNTHETIC INTERFACES
ABSTRACT: Torsional ring shear and large-scale direct shear tests were conducted
to investigate the shear behavior of polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane-geosynthetic interfaces. Specifically, the smooth and faille-finished sides of a 0.75 mm-thick
PVC geomembrane were sheared against five different nonwoven geotextiles, a drainage composite, a geonet, and an unreinforced geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). Test
results indicate that the smooth side of the PVC geomembrane yields a higher interface
shear resistance than the faille-finished side due to the larger contact area and higher
pliability of the smooth side. The interface shear behavior of the PVC geomembrane is
compared to that of a high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane and two very
flexible polyethylene (VFPE) geomembranes. Faille-finished PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces experience a post-peak strength loss of less than 25% at
normal stresses between 100 and 400 kPa and no post-peak strength loss at normal
stresses of 50 kPa and below. This behavior is attributed to the pliability of the PVC
geomembrane, which enables (i) the geomembrane surface to be roughened, (ii) the
other interface component to embed into the geomembrane as shearing progresses, and
(iii) no texturing to be used that can damage the overlying geosynthetic. The effects of
nonwoven geotextile fiber type, mass per unit area, and calendering on PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interface strength are also investigated.
KEYWORDS: PVC, Geomembrane, Geotextile, Geosynthetic clay liner, Drainage
composite, Direct shear test, Ring shear test, Shear strength, Slope stability.
AUTHORS: R.P. Hillman, Project Engineer, Golder Associates, Inc., 10 Chrysler,
Suite B, Irvine, California 92618, USA, Telephone: 1/949-583-2700, Telefax: 1/949583-2770, E-mail: ____; and T.D. Stark, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering, 2217 Newmark Civil Engineering Laboratory, University of Illinois, 205 N.
Mathews Ave., Urbana, Illinois 61801, USA, Telephone: 1/217-333-7394, Telefax: 1/
217-333-9464, E-mail: _______.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 1801 County Road B West, Roseville, Minnesota 551134061, USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-631-9334. Geosynthetics
International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATE: Original manuscript submitted 29 December 1999, revised version received 5
May 2000, and accepted 4 January 2001. Discussion open until 1 October 2001.
REFERENCE: Hillman, R.P. and Stark, T.D., 2001, “Shear Strength Characteristics
of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 8,
No. 2, pp. ??.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
1
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
1
INTRODUCTION
The usual design objective for impoundments and waste containment facilities is to
maximize storage capacity. Thus, it is important to construct their side slopes as
steeply as possible. To reduce leakage from these facilities, a composite liner system
that incorporates a geomembrane is usually installed. For example, municipal and hazardous waste containment facilities in the United States are required to have a composite liner and cover system that usually consists of a compacted clay liner and/or a
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) and other geosynthetic materials. The geosynthetic
components of these systems routinely include layers of geonets or drainage composites, geotextile cushions and/or filters, and a geomembrane. An important characteristic of these composite liner systems with respect to slope stability is the shear
resistance along the various component interfaces. A number of case histories (Byrne
et al. 1992; Seed and Boulanger 1991; Seed et al. 1990; Stark 1999) suggest that a
geomembrane can create a problematic interface due to low frictional resistance
between it and another geosynthetic component or soil.
To date, data on the shear behavior and peak and residual shear strengths of PVC
geomembrane-geosynthetic interfaces have not been published. To fill this need, torsional ring shear and large-scale direct shear tests were conducted on a variety of PVC
geomembrane-geosynthetic interfaces. These test results are summarized herein and
complement/differ from the extensive information available on HDPE geomembranegeosynthetic and HDPE geomembrane-soil interfaces (Bove 1990; Dove and Frost
1999; Koerner et al. 1986; Martin et al. 1984; Mitchell et al. 1990; Negussey et al.
1989; O’Rourke et al. 1990; Saxena and Wong 1984, Stark and Poeppel 1994, Stark et
al. 1996, Takasumi et al. 1991, Williams and Houlihan 1987; Yegian and Lahlaf 1992).
It will be shown that the higher pliability and sticky nature of PVC geomembranes
results in a different interface shear behavior than HDPE geomembranes. This resulted
in little similarities to the existing data on HDPE geomembranes and, thus, few linkages to the existing literature. A database of peak interface friction angles and shear
displacements for a 0.75 mm-thick polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane with typical geosynthetic cover and liner system components is presented in Table 1. Each friction angle and shear displacement value corresponds to a particular normal stress. For
example, the first interface listed, faille PVC-GT1, has a peak secant friction angle of
28, 28, 27, 25, and 24° at a normal stress of 17, 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa, respectively. A database of the corresponding residual interface friction angles and shear displacements is shown in Table 2.
All of the values in Tables 1 and 2 were obtained from ring shear tests as the direct
shear tests were performed only to verify the ring shear test results and to compare the
two test methods. Details of the ring shear and direct shear test results are discussed
throughout the present paper. The databases in Tables 1 and 2 provide designers and
agencies with information for estimating the frictional performance of certain geosynthetic interfaces, as well as information for selecting the appropriate nonwoven geotextile for composite liner or cover systems that utilize a PVC geomembrane to
maximize interface shear resistance. Since the shear resistance of geosynthetic interfaces is project specific and product dependent, presentation and discussion of the test
2
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Table 1. Summary of peak geomembrane-geosynthetic interface friction angles and
shear displacements from ring shear tests (for comparison purposes onlya).
Geomembrane-geosynthetic
interface
Secant peak friction angle for
normal stresses of 17, 50, 100,
200, and 400 kPa, respectively,
except as noted (° )
Shear displacement at peak
friction angle for normal
stresses of 17, 50, 100, 200,
and 400 kPa, respectively,
except as noted (mm)
Faille PVC-GT1
28, 28, 27, 25, 29
500, 505, 550, 150, 140
Faille PVC-GT2
37, 33, 31, 32, 33
b
1000, 500, 20, 18, 10b
Faille PVC-GT3
25, 26, 28, 28, 27
500, 550, 480, 100, 15
Faille PVC-GT4
20, 21, 22, 23, 22
200, 225, 100, 25, 20
Smooth PVC-GT4
29, 30, 32, 30, 26
1000, 985, 990, 500, 400
Faille PVC-GT5
32, 30, 29, 31, 31
400, 455, 100, 80, 75
b
Smooth HDPE-GT2
11, 10, 11, 9, 9
4, 3, 3, 4, 2b
Textured HDPE-GT2
55, 39, 32, 33, 31b
12, 5, 7, 4, 6b
Smooth VFPE-GT2
11, 9, 10, 7, 7b
3, 1, 1, 1, 1b
Textured VFPE-GT2
42, 32, 30, 27, 27b
7, 6, 5, 7, 5b
Faille PVC-drainage composite
34, 25, 28, 28, 27
500, 225, 35, 18, 17
Faille PVC-geonet
23, 25, 26, 24, 25
2, 2, 2, 3, 7
Faille PVC-smooth-backed GCL
27, 28, 22, 20, 14
1, 1, 1, 1, 1
Faille PVC-textured-backed GCL
27, 25, 25, 26, 24
1, 1, 1, 2, 3
Notes: a Site-specific interface testing should be conducted for design purposes. b Interface tested at normal
stresses of 17, 48, 96, 192, and 285 kPa instead of 17, 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa.
results herein are concentrated on shear behavior rather than providing specific shear
strength values for use in design applications.
PVC geomembranes can be manufactured with a smooth side and an embossed
side. The surface of the embossed side usually resembles that of a file and is called a
“faille-finished” surface. Accordingly, a faille PVC geomembrane interface is one in
which the faille-finished surface of a PVC geomembrane is sheared against another
geosynthetic component (Tables 1 and 2). A smooth PVC geomembrane interface is
one in which the smooth surface of a PVC geomembrane is sheared against another
geosynthetic component.
2
TORSIONAL RING SHEAR APPARATUS
Stark and Poeppel (1994), Stark et al. (1996), and Eid and Stark (1997) describe the
use of a torsional ring shear apparatus to measure the shear strength of geosyntheticgeosynthetic and geosynthetic-soil interfaces. In summary, the torsional ring shear
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
3
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Table 2. Summary of residual geomembrane-geosynthetic interface friction angles and
shear displacements from ring shear tests (for comparison purposes onlya).
Geomembrane-geosynthetic
interface
Secant residual friction angle for
normal stresses of 17, 50, 100,
200, and 400 kPa, respectively,
except as noted (° )
Shear displacement at residual
friction angle for normal
stresses of 17, 50, 100, 200,
and 400 kPa, respectively,
except as noted (mm)
Faille PVC-GT1
28, 28, 27, 24, 25
500, 505, 550, 585, 620
Faille PVC-GT2
37, 33, 26, 26, 26
b
Faille PVC-GT3
25, 26, 27, 26, 24
500, 550, 580, 600, 615
Faille PVC-GT4
20, 21, 21, 20, 20
200, 225, 230, 310, 300
Smooth PVC-GT4
29, 30, 32, 30, 26
1000, 985, 990, 500, 400
Faille PVC-GT5
32, 30, 28, 30, 29
400, 455, 465, 505, 550
b
1000, 500, 175, 160, 150b
55, 53, 45, 41, 35b
Smooth HDPE-GT2
7, 7, 5, 6, 5
Textured HDPE-GT2
25, 17, 16, 15, 16b
205, 175, 145, 125, 100b
Smooth VFPE-GT2
5, 4, 5, 5, 6b
175, 140, 50, 40, 25b
Textured VFPE-GT2
25, 22, 20, 19, 19b
150, 145, 175, 180, 195b
Faille PVC-drainage composite
34, 25, 23, 22, 21
500, 225, 200, 75, 65
Faille PVC-geonet
18, 20, 19, 21, 19
25, 20, 15, 40, 50
Faille PVC-smooth-backed GCL
21, 21, 11, 11, 10
30, 30, 18, 15, 10
Faille PVC-textured-backed GCL
21, 19, 18, 18, 18
13, 10, 12, 10, 15
Notes: a Site-specific interface testing should be conducted for design purposes. b Interface tested at normal
stresses of 17, 48, 96, 192, and 285 kPa instead of 17, 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa.
apparatus allows: (1) unlimited continuous shear displacement to occur in one direction, resulting in the development of a true residual strength condition; (2) a constant
cross-sectional area during shear; (3) minimal laboratory supervision; and (4) data
acquisition techniques to be readily used.
A modified Bromhead ring shear apparatus was used to measure the shear strength
of the geomembrane-geosynthetic interfaces described herein. A modified specimen container was used to hold the bottom interface component in place. In tests on geosyntheticgeosynthetic interfaces, the knurled porous stone in the specimen container was replaced
with a plastic insert to secure the appropriate geosynthetic. The insert was fastened to
the specimen container using four screws. Specifically, an annular geomembrane or GCL
specimen with an inside and outside diameter of 40 and 100 mm, respectively, was
secured to the plastic insert using an adhesive. The other interface component was
adhered to the top (loading) platen. The normal stress was applied to the top platen, which
sits on top of the specimen container. During shearing, the bottom interface component
moves with respect to the stationary top interface component. All of the shear dis-
4
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
placement values and shear displacement rates reported in the present paper were calculated using a diameter of 70 mm, which is the average diameter of the annular specimen.
3
RING SHEAR SPECIMEN PREPARATION AND TEST PROCEDURE
3.1
Geosynthetics Used in Shear Testing
The geosynthetics used in the interface shear testing are listed below. After each geosynthetic is an identifier in parentheses to facilitate comparison of the test results
throughout the present paper.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane: A 0.75 mm-thick geomembrane with a
faille-finished side and a smooth side. This geomembrane is manufactured by
Canadian General-Tower, Ltd. of Cambridge, Ontario, Canada.
Textured, high density polyethylene (T-HDPE) geomembrane: A 1.50 mm-thick,
coextruded textured geomembrane that is manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of Houston, Texas, USA.
Smooth, high density polyethylene (S-HDPE) geomembrane: A 1.50 mm-thick,
smooth geomembrane that is manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of
Houston, Texas, USA.
Textured, very flexible polyethylene (T-VFPE) geomembrane: A 1.00 mm-thick,
coextruded textured geomembrane that is manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of Houston, Texas, USA.
Smooth, very flexible polyethylene (S-VFPE) geomembrane: A 1.00 mm-thick,
smooth geomembrane that is manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of
Houston, Texas, USA.
Drainage composite (DC): A 5.6 mm-thick HDPE geonet heat-bonded to two nonwoven, polyester (PET) geotextiles, each with a mass per unit area of 270 g/m2.
This drainage composite is manufactured by Serrot International, Inc. of Henderson, Nevada, USA.
Geonet (GN): A 5.6 mm-thick HDPE geonet heat-bonded to one nonwoven, PET
geotextile with a mass per unit area of 270 g/m2. This geonet composite is manufactured by Serrot International, Inc. of Henderson, Nevada, USA.
Unreinforced geosynthetic clay liner (GCL): A 5 mm-thick layer of bentonite
adhered to a 0.50 mm-thick smooth or a 1.00 mm-thick textured HDPE geomembrane. This GCL is manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of Houston,
Texas, USA.
Nonwoven geotextile (GT1): A nonwoven, polypropylene (PP) geotextile with a
mass per unit area of 540 g/m2. This geotextile is manufactured by Amoco Fabrics
& Fibers Company of Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Nonwoven geotextile (GT2): A nonwoven, PET geotextile with a mass per unit
area of 540 g/m2. This geotextile is manufactured by Johns Manville of Spartanburg, South Carolina, USA.
Nonwoven geotextile (GT3): A nonwoven, PP geotextile with a mass per unit area
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
5
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
•
•
3.2
of 205 g/m2. This geotextile was manufactured by Polyfelt Americas of Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.
Nonwoven geotextile (GT4): A nonwoven, PP geotextile with a mass per unit area
of 540 g/m2. This geotextile was manufactured by Polyfelt Americas of Atlanta,
Georgia, USA.
Nonwoven geotextile (GT5): A nonwoven, calendered, PP geotextile with a mass
per unit area of 540 g/m2. This geotextile is manufactured by Amoco Fabrics &
Fibers Company of Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
PVC Geomembrane Specimen Preparation
PVC geomembrane specimens were cut into an annular shape and secured to a plastic
insert in the specimen container for all of the interface tests except the unreinforced
GCL-PVC geomembrane interface tests. In the unreinforced GCL interface tests, the
PVC geomembrane was secured to the top platen and the unreinforced GCL was
adhered to the plastic insert in the specimen container. A thin coat of epoxy was used
to adhere the PVC geomembrane to either the plastic insert or the top platen. The
epoxy was allowed to cure for 24 hours under a normal stress of 15 kPa for specimens
that would be sheared at a normal stress of 17 kPa and a normal stress of 25 kPa for all
other shearing normal stresses. As a result, the curing normal stress did not exceed the
normal stress at which the test was conducted. The curing normal stress aided bonding
of the geomembrane and minimized vertical displacement caused by the epoxy during
testing. The geomembrane and specimen container/top platen were marked to ensure
that the geomembrane did not slip during shearing.
3.3
Nonwoven Geotextile Specimen Preparation
All nonwoven geotextile specimens were secured to the top platen. To aid securing of a
geotextile to the top platen, the geotextile was initially glued to a smooth HDPE
geomembrane ring that was cut to the same size as the PVC geomembrane specimen.
The geotextile was cut in a circle with a diameter of approximately 160 mm, which is
larger than the outside diameter of the ring shear specimen (100 mm). A small circular
hole (roughly 20 mm) was cut in the center of the geotextile specimen so that there was
no interference with the ring shear apparatus centering pin. The HDPE geomembrane
ring was then glued to the geotextile using a thin coat of epoxy. A 2 to 3 kg mass was
placed on the geotextile-geomembrane ring to aid adhesion. After approximately 15
minutes of drying, the geotextile, extending beyond the edge of the geomembrane ring,
was cut so that eight wedges or flaps of geotextile that were equal in size and spacing
remained. Epoxy was applied to the back of the smooth geomembrane and the eight
geotextile wedges were folded over and adhered to the back side of the smooth
geomembrane. The 2 to 3 kg mass was reapplied for roughly 45 minutes. This wrapping of the geotextile around the geomembrane ring prevented geotextile fibers from
readily pulling out during shearing.
The geotextile-geomembrane ring system was secured to the top platen using a thin
coat of epoxy. The side with the eight wedges was adhered to the top platen. The top
6
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
platen with the attached geotextile specimen was then placed in the ring shear apparatus on top of the specimen container, to which the geomembrane was adhered. A sacrificial geotextile cushion was placed between the geomembrane and geotextile so that
there was no contact between the interface components before shearing. The epoxy
was allowed to cure for 24 hours under a normal stress (15 or 25 kPa) that did not
exceed the normal stress at which the test was to be conducted. The top platen and geotextile were also marked to ensure that the geotextile did not slip during shearing.
After allowing the epoxy to cure for 24 hours, the sacrificial geotextile was
removed and the two interface components were placed in contact such that no relative
displacement occurred between them prior to shearing. The ring shear apparatus was
then loaded to the shearing normal stress using a load increment ratio (LIR) of 1.0.
Once the desired normal stress was applied, the interface system was allowed to equilibrate for approximately 20 minutes before shearing was started. A shear displacement
rate of 0.37 mm/minute was used for all of the geomembrane-geotextile interface testing. The geomembrane-geotextile interfaces were sheared to a displacement of at least
1,000 mm before shearing was stopped.
3.4
Drainage Composite and Geonet Specimen Preparation
The drainage composite specimens were annular with a diameter of approximately 100
mm and a center circular hole of approximately 20 mm. Epoxy was applied to one of
the geotextiles of the drainage composite to adhere the composite to the top platen.
The epoxy was allowed to cure in the ring shear apparatus for 24 hours under a normal
stress (15 or 25 kPa) that did not exceed the normal stress at which the test was to be
conducted. A sacrificial geotextile was again used such that the interface components
were not in contact prior to shearing. After the epoxy had cured for 24 hours, the sacrificial geotextile was removed and the two interface components were placed in contact
such that no relative displacement occurred between them. The ring shear apparatus
was then loaded to the shearing normal stress using an LIR of 1.0. Once the desired
normal stress was applied, the interface system was allowed to equilibrate for approximately 20 minutes before shearing was started. A shear displacement rate of 0.37 mm/
minute was used for all of the geomembrane-drainage composite interface testing and
the interfaces were allowed to undergo shear displacements of at least 1,000 mm
before shearing was stopped.
To prepare a geonet specimen, one of the geotextiles was removed from the drainage composite to expose the HDPE geonet. Afterwards, the geonet specimen preparation followed the procedure described previously for the drainage composite.
3.5
Unreinforced GCL Specimen Preparation
The unreinforced GCL specimen was attached to the plastic insert in the specimen container with the bentonite layer facing upwards. To simulate encapsulation of the bentonite in the field, the GCL specimens were tested at the manufactured water content and
no hydration was allowed. The GCL specimens were annular with inside and outside
diameters of 40 and 100 mm, respectively. Epoxy was applied to the HDPE geomem-
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
7
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
brane backing of the GCL to adhere it to the plastic insert. The epoxy was allowed to
cure in the ring shear device for 24 hours under a normal stress of 15 kPa for all tests. A
sacrificial geotextile was not used during the curing process because some of the bentonite may have adhered to the geotextile. After the epoxy cured for 24 hours, the specimen was loaded to the shearing normal stress using an LIR of 1.0. The interface was
then allowed to equilibrate for 24 hours under this normal stress before shearing was
started. A shear displacement rate of 0.015 mm/minute was used for all of the unreinforced GCL-geomembrane interface tests (Eid and Stark 1997).
4
COMPARISON OF RING SHEAR AND DIRECT SHEAR TEST
RESULTS
To facilitate the required testing, it was desirable to use a ring shear device instead of
the large-scale direct shear box required by ASTM D 5321. ASTM D 5321 allows
other shear devices to be used for geosynthetic shear testing if they yield similar results
as the large-scale direct shear box. To investigate this substitution, large-scale direct
shear tests were conducted on the same PVC geomembrane interfaces that were tested
in the torsional ring shear device. The direct shear tests were performed in accordance
with ASTM D 5321. Specifically, the large-scale direct shear apparatus used in this
study allows a 305 mm by 305 mm upper geosynthetic specimen to be sheared over a
lower geosynthetic specimen that is 305 mm by 356 mm. The normal stresses are
applied pneumatically and the same shear displacement rates used for the ring shear
tests were used for the direct shear tests to avoid displacement rate-related discrepancies in the test results. The direct shear tests were also conducted at the same normal
stresses used in the ring shear tests to ensure an accurate comparison of the shear
stress-displacement relationships and peak and residual shear strengths.
Figure 1 presents a comparison between the shear stress-displacement relation-
Figure 1. Comparison of shear stress-displacement relationships from ring shear and
direct shear tests on a faille PVC geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interface.
8
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
ships obtained from ring shear and direct shear tests on a faille PVC geomembraneGT2 geotextile interface at a normal stress of 192 kPa. It can be seen that both test procedures produce similar shear stress-displacement relationships. The ring shear test
yielded secant peak and residual friction angles of approximately 32 and 26°, respectively, while the direct shear test yielded corresponding values of 34 and 28°, respectively. This agreement between the ring shear and direct shear test results on the faille
PVC geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interface is typical for all of the interfaces that
were compared (Table 3). The main difference between the ring shear and direct shear
test methods is in the values obtained for the residual friction angle and shear displacement at the residual strength. The direct shear test terminates at a shear displacement
of approximately 100 mm and, thus, the resulting friction angle is greater than the ring
shear residual friction angle for many interfaces. Direct shear tests were conducted at
one normal stress for each interface (either 192 or 200 kPa). Only one normal stress
was tested because the focus of the present paper is PVC geomembrane-geosynthetic
interface shear behavior, not a comparison of ring shear and direct shear test methods.
Direct shear testing is being conducted at other normal stresses and the results will be
the subject of a subsequent paper that compares the two devices. One normal stress
was used to show agreement between the two testing methods, then, the more efficient
ring shear device was used to obtain the test results that comprise the databases of
Tables 1 and 2. Discussion of the ring shear data in Tables 1 and 2 is the focus of the
remainder of the present paper.
In summary, it was assumed that the ring shear device yields similar results to the
large-scale direct shear apparatus for the normal stresses and interfaces considered
herein and could be used as a substitute for the direct shear apparatus as suggested in
ASTM D 5321. The ring shear device was chosen because ring shear tests are easier
Table 3. Comparison of torsional ring shear and large-scale direct shear test results at a
normal stress of 200 kPa (except as noted) (for comparison purposes onlya).
Geomembrane-geosynthetic
interface
Ring/direct
shear secant
peak friction
angle,
respectively
(° )
Ring/direct
shear
displacement
at peak,
respectively
(mm/mm)
Ring/direct
shear secant
residual
friction angle,
respectively
(° )
Ring/direct
shear
displacement
at residual,
respectively
(mm/mm)
Faille PVC-GT1
25/31
150/100
24/31
585/100
Faille PVC-GT2
32/34
b
b
Faille PVC-GT3
b
18/20
26/28
160/100b
28/28
100/30
26/28
600/30
Faille PVC-GT4
23/22
25/60
20/22
310/60
Faille PVC-drainage composite
28/32
18/27
22/26
75/80
Faille PVC-geonet
24/27
3/10
21/22
40/26
Notes: a Site-specific interface testing should be conducted for design purposes. b Interface tested at normal
stresses of 17, 48, 96, 192, and 285 kPa instead of 17, 50, 100, 200, and 400 kPa.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
9
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
and more cost effective to perform than large-scale direct shear tests. This is mainly
due to the fact that a much larger specimen is required for a direct shear test. The larger
specimen results in larger equipment and a longer specimen preparation time than for
the ring shear device.
5
COMPARISON OF SMOOTH AND FAILLE PVC GEOMEMBRANE
INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTHS
Shear tests were performed to determine the effect of a faille finish on the shear
strength of PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces. Figure 2 shows the
peak and residual failure envelopes for the smooth and faille sides of the PVC
geomembrane sheared against the GT4 nonwoven geotextile. It is evident that the
smooth side of the PVC geomembrane yielded significantly higher peak and residual
interface shear strengths than the faille side. Furthermore, no noticeable post-peak
strength loss was observed for the smooth PVC geomembrane interface, and the peak
and residual failure envelopes are essentially the same. For example, at a normal stress
of 200 kPa, the smooth PVC interface had a secant peak and residual friction angle of
30°. At this same normal stress, the faille PVC interface yielded secant peak and residual friction angles of 23 and 20°, respectively.
The post-peak shear behavior is further illustrated by the shear stress-displacement
relationships shown in Figure 3. The faille PVC interface reached a peak strength condition and then experienced a post-peak strength loss of approximately 10%. However,
the smooth PVC geomembrane interface exhibited a peak shear strength that was
roughly 30% higher than that for the faille side and it reached this peak strength at a
larger shear displacement. The smooth PVC geomembrane interface was tested to over
1,000 mm of shear displacement and no post-peak strength loss was observed. The
higher frictional strength of the smooth side of a PVC geomembrane is attributed to its
Figure 2. Comparison of failure envelopes for smooth and faille PVC geomembraneGT4 geotextile interfaces.
10
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Figure 3. Comparison of shear stress-displacement relationships for smooth and faille
PVC geomembrane-GT4 geotextile interfaces.
larger contact area and higher surface pliability than the faille side. The increased pliability results in a more ductile, malleable, or adaptable surface than the faille side.
The difference in surface pliability is attributed to the embossing process, which
results in the embossed pattern creating a less pliable surface. The smooth side allows
for a greater area of contact between it and the other interface component because it
does not possess the surface depressions of the faille side, which decrease the interface
contact area. The faille side was estimated to have a contact surface area that is 20 to
30% lower than that of the smooth side because of the embossing. Furthermore, as
shearing progresses, the higher surface pliability of the smooth side allows it to be: (1)
roughened, and (2) embedded into by the other interface component, resulting in a
larger shear resistance. The faille side also possesses a high pliability compared to an
HDPE geomembrane; however, the other interface component cannot roughen and
embed into the faille side as much as it can on the smooth side. This prevents the frictional resistance of the faille side from reaching that of the smooth side. This was evident from striations on the smooth side after shearing at all normal stresses (17 to 400
kPa). In contrast, the faille side did not exhibit any striations except after tests at normal stresses of 200 and 400 kPa.
In summary, the higher surface pliability of the smooth side enables the strengthincreasing mechanisms discussed above to develop more readily than on the faille
side, which accounts for the larger shear strength of the smooth side. This also explains
why no post-peak strength loss was observed for the smooth PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces. The strength-increasing mechanisms offset the strengthreducing effects, such as geotextile fibers being pulled or torn out, thereby preventing
a loss of interface shear resistance with increasing shear displacement. This was not
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
11
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
the case for the faille side because the strength-increasing mechanisms were not large
enough to offset the strength-reducing effects. Thus, a post-peak strength loss was
observed for the faille side.
Since the faille side of a PVC geomembrane renders a lower interface shear resistance than the smooth side, it was deemed appropriate to focus the present paper on the
shear strength of faille PVC geomembrane interfaces. By doing this, lower bounds for
PVC geomembrane peak and residual interface shear strengths were established.
Accordingly, all of the PVC geomembrane data presented and discussed in the remainder of the present paper pertain to the faille PVC geomembrane interface.
6
COMPARISON OF PVC, HDPE, AND VFPE GEOMEMBRANENONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE INTERFACE SHEAR STRENGTHS
The peak and residual friction angles of textured and smooth HDPE geomembrane
interfaces are compared to those of the faille PVC geomembrane interfaces in Tables 1
and 2, respectively. Additionally, peak and residual failure envelopes for faille PVC and
textured HDPE geomembrane-GT2 nonwoven geotextile interfaces are shown in Figure 4. It can be seen that these two interfaces have similar peak failure envelopes. However, there is a significant difference in the post-peak strength loss experienced by the
interfaces, as reflected in the residual failure envelopes. Specifically, the textured
HDPE geomembrane interface underwent a larger post-peak strength loss compared to
the faille PVC geomembrane interface. Stark et al. (1996) showed that a variety of textured HDPE geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces experienced a similar (50
to 60%) post-peak strength loss. The reason for this large strength loss is that the asperities of the textured HDPE geomembrane tore or pulled out the fibers of the geotextile
and the geomembrane texturing was smoothed or polished (Stark et al. 1996). On the
Figure 4. Comparison of failure envelopes for faille PVC and textured HDPE
geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interfaces.
12
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
other hand, the faille PVC geomembrane tore or pulled out only a small quantity of
fibers from the geotextile, which allowed the geotextile to stay relatively intact and
maintain the interface strength. The failed specimens from the textured HDPE
geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interface tests reported by Stark et al. (1996) had
been archived and were directly compared with the new PVC geomembrane-nonwoven
geotextile interface test specimens to estimate the damage to the nonwoven geotextiles.
After observing the small quantity of fibers that were removed from the geotextile by
the PVC geomembrane, it could not be determined whether the fibers were torn from or
pulled out of the geotextile. At normal stresses of 48 kPa and below, the PVC geomembrane extracted few, if any, fibers because the geotextile was unable to sufficiently
embed into the PVC geomembrane. As a result, there was no noticeable post-peak
strength loss at these normal stresses. In fact, a trend of no post-peak strength loss at
low normal stresses was observed for all of the PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces tested. This behavior has important design implications that are discussed below. At normal stresses between 96 and 285 kPa, the residual shear strength of
the PVC geomembrane interface was only approximately 15 to 25% lower than its peak
shear strength. These characteristics suggest that PVC geomembranes are well suited
for applications in which low normal stresses are expected, such as landfill cover systems, or where seismically induced permanent deformations may result.
VFPE geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interface shear behavior was also determined in the present study from a series of ring shear tests on the smooth and textured
VFPE-GT2 geotextile interfaces. Figure 5 presents a comparison of the peak and residual failure envelopes for faille PVC, textured VFPE, and smooth VFPE geomembraneGT2 geotextile interfaces. The failure envelopes indicate that the peak shear strength of
this textured VFPE geomembrane interface was less than the faille PVC geomembrane
interface. Additionally, this textured VFPE interface experienced a larger post-peak
Figure 5. Comparison of failure envelopes for faille PVC, smooth VFPE, and textured
VFPE geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interfaces.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
13
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
strength loss than the faille PVC interface because the VFPE geomembrane texturing
tore or pulled out more fibers from the nonwoven geotextile during shearing. As
expected, the smooth VFPE geomembrane interface exhibited lower peak and residual
shear strengths than the faille PVC and textured VFPE geomembrane interfaces. The
reason that the smooth VFPE geomembrane interface exhibited a lower peak and residual shear strength than the faille PVC geomembrane interface is the difference in surface pliability. Even though the VFPE geomembrane is more pliable and flexible than
an HDPE geomembrane, it is still less pliable than the faille or smooth sides of a PVC
geomembrane and, thus, exhibits a lower interface strength.
As a final comparison, Figure 6 presents the shear stress-displacement relationships for faille PVC, textured HDPE, and textured VFPE geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interfaces at a normal stress of 192 kPa. The VFPE and HDPE geomembrane
interfaces reached a peak strength condition after approximately 5 mm of shear displacement and then experienced a substantial post-peak strength loss (40 to 60%). On
the other hand, the faille PVC interface peaked at a shear displacement of approximately 18 mm and lost only 20 to 25% of its peak shear strength. Additionally, a comparison of Figures 4 and 5 shows that textured HDPE geomembrane interfaces
produced higher peak and lower residual failure envelopes than the corresponding textured VFPE geomembrane interfaces. In conclusion, faille PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces appear to yield similar peak shear strengths and
considerably higher residual shear strengths than similar textured HDPE and textured
VFPE geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces.
7
SHEAR STRENGTH OF FAILLE PVC GEOMEMBRANENONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE INTERFACES
To study the effects of various nonwoven geotextile properties on PVC geomembrane-
Figure 6. Comparison of shear stress-displacement relationships for faille PVC, textured
HDPE, and textured VFPE geomembrane-GT2 geotextile interfaces.
14
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
nonwoven geotextile interface shear strengths, five different nonwoven geotextiles
were sheared against the faille-finished side of a PVC geomembrane. The five nonwoven geotextiles were chosen such that the effects of nonwoven geotextile fiber type,
mass per unit area, and calendering could be studied while maintaining the remaining
nonwoven geotextile properties constant.
7.1
Effect of Nonwoven Geotextile Fiber Composition and Type on Interface
Shear Strength
Nonwoven geotextiles can be manufactured with different base polymers, the two
most common being PET and PP. To investigate the effect of fiber composition on
interface shear strength, a PET geotextile (GT2) and a PP geotextile (GT4) were
sheared against a faille PVC geomembrane. Since the two nonwoven geotextiles have
different polymer compositions, the fibers themselves probably do not possess the
same roughness and hardness. Additionally, the fibers most likely do not have the
same diameter or weight. However, both geotextiles have a mass per unit area of 540
g/m2 and are needle punched with continuous single fibers.
The peak and residual failure envelopes for the two interfaces are presented in Figure 7. It is apparent that the PET-based geotextile interface yielded higher peak and
residual friction angles than the PP-based geotextile interface. For example, at a normal
stress of 200 kPa, the secant peak and residual friction angles for the faille PVC-PET
geotextile are 32 and 26°, respectively, while the secant peak and residual friction
angles for the faille PVC geomembrane-PP geotextile interface are 23 and 20°, respectively. Polyester-based nonwoven geotextiles were also found to yield higher interface
shear strengths than PP-based nonwoven geotextiles when sheared against the textured
HDPE geomembrane (Stark et al. 1996). This trend is most likely caused by differences
in fiber diameter, hardness, roughness, and weight as well as compositional properties.
Figure 7.
Effect of nonwoven geotextile fiber composition on interface shear strength.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
15
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Figure 8.
Effect of nonwoven geotextile fiber composition on interface shear strength.
Additionally, two nonwoven, PP geotextiles (GT1 and GT4) were used to determine the effect of geotextile fiber type (staple versus continuous) on the shear strength
of faille PVC geomembrane interfaces. Both geotextiles are needle punched and have
a mass per unit area of 540 g/m2. However, the GT1 geotextile utilizes staple fibers
while the GT4 geotextile utilizes continuous single fibers. Figure 8 shows the peak
and residual failure envelopes for the faille PVC geomembrane-GT1 and GT4 interfaces. The failure envelopes indicate that the staple fiber geotextile yielded greater
peak and residual interface strengths when sheared against a faille PVC geomembrane.
Another important characteristic inferred from Figure 8 is that the staple fiber geotextile did not undergo as large a post-peak strength loss as the continuous single fiber
geotextile. A possible explanation for this behavior is that the staple fibers are too
small or fine to embed into the PVC geomembrane to the same degree as the longer
and larger continuous single fibers. It was observed after shearing that fewer staple
fibers were torn out during shear, which enabled the staple fiber geotextile to stay more
intact than the continuous single fiber geotextile and prevented the interface from
undergoing a large post-peak strength loss. This may be attributed to the continuous
single fibers being longer and having more contact area with the PVC geomembrane.
The greater contact area may have increased the shear force on the continuous fiber
resulting in tearing or pulling out. Once the continuous fiber is removed from the geotextile, it is oriented parallel to the direction of shear. The long nature of the fiber
results in a larger reduction in the interface shear resistance than a staple fiber. In addition, the continuous single fibers were able to embed into the PVC geomembrane at
high normal stresses, allowing the continuous single fibers to be torn or pulled out and
the interface shear strength to decrease as shearing progressed. Thus, the mechanical
properties of the fibers appear to influence the PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile shear behavior.
16
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
7.2
Effect of Nonwoven Geotextile Mass Per Unit Area on Interface Shear
Strength
Two nonwoven, PP geotextiles, one with a mass per unit area of 205 g/m2 (GT3) and
the other with a mass per unit area of 540 g/m2 (GT4), were sheared against a faille
PVC geomembrane to examine the effects of mass per unit area on interface shear
resistance. Both of the geotextiles are needle punched and have continuous single
fibers. The 205 g/m2 geotextile yielded a greater interface shear resistance than the 540
g/m2 geotextile, as indicated by the failure envelopes of Figure 9. For example, at a
normal stress of 200 kPa, the 205 g/m2 geotextile interface exhibited secant peak and
residual friction angles of 28 and 25°, respectively, compared to 23 and 20°, respectively, for the 540 g/m2 geotextile. This may be caused by the fibers of the 540 g/m2
geotextile being more easily torn or pulled out during shear than the fibers of the 205
g/m2 geotextile and the increased number of fibers in the heavier geotextile placing
more fibers in contact with the surface of the PVC geomembrane. The increased number of fibers in contact with the surface of the PVC geomembrane increases the number of fibers that can actually be removed from the geotextile. Once a fiber is removed,
it is oriented parallel to the direction of shear, which reduces the interface shear resistance. Therefore, the mass per unit area appears to slightly influence the faille PVC
geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interface shear strength.
7.3
Effect of Nonwoven Geotextile Calendering on Interface Shear Strength
To investigate the effect of nonwoven geotextile calendering on interface shear
strength, a faille PVC geomembrane was sheared against a nonwoven, calendered geo-
Figure 9.
Effect of nonwoven geotextile mass per unit area on interface shear strength.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
17
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
textile (GT5). This geotextile possesses the same properties as the GT1 nonwoven geotextile except that it is calendered. The peak and residual failure envelopes for the faille
PVC geomembrane-GT5 and -GT1 geotextile interfaces are shown in Figure 10. It can
be seen that the calendered geotextile interface yielded larger peak and residual interface shear strengths than the non-calendered geotextile. This trend is attributed to the
surface of the calendered geotextile being rougher and more rigid than that of the noncalendered geotextile. This roughness and rigidity may enable the calendered geotextile
to embed into the PVC geomembrane to a greater degree and prevent the fibers from
being pulled or torn out and oriented parallel to the direction of shear. Additionally, the
calendered geotextile, like the non-calendered geotextile, experienced approximately
5% post-peak strength loss at normal stresses of 200 and 400 kPa and no post-peak
strength loss at normal stresses between 17 and 100 kPa. This behavior is probably due
to the rough surface of the calendered geotextile being smoothed at high normal
stresses, thereby causing some loss of shear strength. The smoothing of the calendered
geotextile at high normal stresses was determined by visually comparing the original/
presheared material with the calendered geotextile after shearing to the residual condition. It could be seen that some of the matted finish of the original calendered geotextile
had been removed resulting in a more pliable surface. However, at lower normal
stresses, the calendered surface is not smoothed significantly, which accounts for the
absence of a post-peak strength loss. In summary, nonwoven geotextile calendering
appears to have an impact on peak and residual interface shear strengths.
Figure 10.
18
Effect of nonwoven geotextile calendering on interface shear strength.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
8
SHEAR STRENGTH OF FAILLE PVC GEOMEMBRANE-DRAINAGE
COMPOSITE AND GEONET INTERFACES
8.1
Introduction
Drainage composites and geonets are commonly used to facilitate lateral drainage in
landfill liner and cover systems and other applications. Therefore, the shear behavior
of PVC geomembrane-drainage composite and geonet interfaces was examined in this
study. As discussed previously, the drainage composite and geonet have two and one
nonwoven geotextiles, respectively, heat-bonded to the geonet. Figure 11 presents a
comparison of the peak and residual failure envelopes for faille PVC geomembranedrainage composite and geonet (without a geotextile in contact with the PVC geomembrane) interfaces. The drainage composite and geonet interfaces exhibited a 20 and
45% post-peak strength loss, respectively, at a normal stress of 400 kPa. This strength
loss is higher than the post-peak strength losses observed for the various PVC
geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces. One of the reasons for these larger
strength losses is that the relatively rigid geonet embedded in the soft PVC geomembrane surface under all of the applied normal stresses. Thus, as interface shearing
began, relatively high shear stresses were required to dislodge the geonet from its initial embedded position. Once the geonet had been dislodged, it sheared across the surface of the PVC geomembrane without being able to embed, thereby resulting in a
significant amount of post-peak strength loss.
The failure envelopes in Figure 11 also show the effect of having a nonwoven geotextile between the PVC geomembrane and the geonet in a drainage composite interface.
Figure 11. Comparison of failure envelopes for faille PVC geomembrane-drainage
composite and -geonet interfaces.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
19
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
This geotextile is the same as the GT2 geotextile except the mass per unit area is 270 g/
m2 instead of 540 g/m2. It can be seen that the faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface yielded average peak and residual friction angles of approximately 27
and 22°, respectively. The corresponding values for the faille PVC geomembrane-geonet
interface are approximately 25 and 20°, respectively. To explain this difference, it is
noted that the faille PVC geomembrane-GT2 interface yielded substantially higher interface strengths (average peak and residual friction angles of 32 and 26°, respectively) than
the faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface. The higher interface shear
strengths for the PVC geomembrane-GT2 interface than the drainage composite interface is attributed to the larger contact area for the GT2 geotextile versus the area corresponding to the geonet in the drainage composite. The higher shear strength of the faille
PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface versus the geonet interface is attributed to the higher frictional resistance for the faille PVC geomembrane-nonwoven GT2
interface than the faille PVC geomembrane-HDPE geonet interface.
8.2
Comparison of Faille PVC and Textured HDPE Geomembrane-Drainage
Composite Interface Shear Strengths
Figure 12 presents the failure envelopes for textured HDPE and faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interfaces. As was the case for the nonwoven geotextile
interfaces, the faille PVC geomembrane interface exhibited a peak shear strength similar to that of the textured HDPE geomembrane interface. Also, a larger post-peak
strength loss (50 to 60%) was observed for the textured HDPE interface than for the
Figure 12. Comparison of failure envelopes for textured HDPE and faille PVC
geomembrane-drainage composite interfaces.
20
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
faille PVC interface (30 to 35%). Since a geonet cannot substantially embed in a
HDPE geomembrane at normal stresses under 500 kPa (Stark et al. 1996), the same
mechanisms responsible for the large post-peak strength losses in textured HDPE
geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces probably produce a similar shear
behavior in textured HDPE geomembrane-drainage composite interfaces. In addition,
the geonet damages and smooths the asperities of the textured HDPE geomembrane
during shearing, thereby decreasing the roughness of the textured surface and further
reducing the interface strength. However, the surface of a faille PVC geomembrane
was actually roughened by the geonet as shearing progressed. This was determined by
visually comparing the sheared PVC geomembrane to a piece of the original material.
The sheared material had striations caused by the geonet ribs that were parallel to the
shear direction. All of these factors account for the lower post-peak strength loss in a
faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface as compared to that in the corresponding textured HDPE interface.
9
SHEAR STRENGTH OF AN UNREINFORCED GCL-FAILLE PVC
GEOMEMBRANE INTERFACE
9.1
Introduction
A GCL can be used in landfill cover and liner systems to partially or completely
replace a compacted clay liner. A faille PVC geomembrane was sheared against an
unreinforced GCL to determine the shear behavior of this interface. As mentioned previously, the GCL was not allowed to hydrate. Figure 13 presents the results of shear
tests performed on the unreinforced, smooth HDPE geomembrane-backed GCL-faille
PVC geomembrane interface. At a normal stress between 50 and 100 kPa, the critical
shear surface shifted from the dry bentonite-faille PVC geomembrane interface to the
Figure 13. Peak and residual failure envelopes for an unreinforced, smooth HDPE
geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC geomembrane interface.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
21
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
smooth HDPE geomembrane backing-dry bentonite interface. In other words, at normal stresses greater than approximately 100 kPa, the unreinforced GCL experienced
an internal adhesive failure because the adhesive bonding the dry bentonite to the
smooth geomembrane backing failed in shear. This behavior was also observed by Eid
and Stark (1997) for an unreinforced, smooth HDPE geomembrane-backed GCL-textured HDPE geomembrane interface. An adhesive failure takes place when the adhesive used to bond the dry bentonite to the smooth geomembrane backing is weaker in
shear than the dry bentonite-faille PVC geomembrane interface. Therefore, the failure
surface shifts to the bottom of the unreinforced bentonite layer and the peak and residual friction angles decrease, as indicated by the discontinuities in the failure envelopes
shown in Figure 13. At normal stresses of 50 kPa and below, the adhesive does not fail
and the interface has average peak and residual friction angles of 27 and 21°, respectively. When an adhesive failure occurs at a normal stress between 50 and 100 kPa, the
average peak and residual friction angles are reduced to 17 and 11°, respectively. In
summary, the unreinforced, smooth HDPE geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC
geomembrane interface strength is stress dependent and this characteristic should be
considered in the design process. For example, a typical landfill cover system is subjected to normal stresses less than 50 kPa, which suggests that failure will occur at the
dry bentonite-PVC geomembrane interface. However, an adhesive failure may occur
in a landfill liner system since normal stresses on a liner usually exceed 100 kPa.
The unreinforced GCL discussed in the previous paragraph is also manufactured
with a textured HDPE geomembrane backing. The unreinforced, textured HDPE
geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC geomembrane interface was tested to determine
if a textured geomembrane backing has an effect on the interface failure mode and
shear strength. The peak and residual failure envelopes for this interface are presented
in Figure 14. It can be seen that the textured geomembrane backing prevented an adhesive failure from occurring at normal stresses ranging from 17 to 400 kPa. To verify this
Figure 14. Peak and residual failure envelopes for an unreinforced, textured, HDPE
geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC geomembrane interface.
22
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
conclusion, the secant peak and residual friction angles at a normal stress of 400 kPa for
the unreinforced, textured geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC geomembrane interface are 24 and 18°, respectively. However, the corresponding values are only 14 and
10°, respectively, for the unreinforced, smooth geomembrane-backed GCL interface.
To experience an adhesive failure with a textured geomembrane backing, the dry bentonite particles would have to shear over the asperities of the geomembrane, which
would require a shear stress greater than the shear strength of the dry bentonite-faille
PVC geomembrane interface. Therefore, a textured HDPE geomembrane backing
increases interface shear strengths at normal stresses greater than approximately 100
kPa by mobilizing a larger shear resistance between the geomembrane backing and the
dry bentonite. This helps to prevent an adhesive failure in the unreinforced GCL for
normal stresses less than and equal to 400 kPa. This differs from results presented by
Stark and Eid (1997) for the unreinforced, textured HDPE geomembrane-backed GCLtextured HDPE geomembrane interface, as discussed below.
9.2
Comparison of Unreinforced, Textured HDPE Geomembrane-Backed
GCL-Faille PVC and Textured HDPE Geomembrane Interface Shear
Strengths
A comparison of peak and residual failure envelopes for the unreinforced, textured
HDPE geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC and textured HDPE geomembrane
interfaces is presented in Figure 15. This illustrates the effect of the encapsulating
geomembrane on the shear behavior of the unreinforced GCL. The textured HDPE
geomembrane interface mobilizes a slightly higher shear strength than the faille PVC
geomembrane interface at normal stresses less than approximately 175 kPa. This is
Figure 15. Comparison of failure envelopes for unreinforced, textured HDPE
geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC and textured HDPE geomembrane interfaces.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
23
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
probably caused by the asperities of the textured HDPE geomembrane embedding into
the dry bentonite layer of the GCL. As shearing begins, a relatively high shear stress
must develop to shear the asperities over the dry bentonite particles. The faille PVC
geomembrane is relatively smooth and flexible compared to the textured HDPE
geomembrane, and it does not embed into the dry bentonite layer to the extent of the
textured HDPE geomembrane. Thus, the faille PVC geomembrane did not develop as
much frictional resistance when sheared over the unreinforced GCL. Also, as discussed above, the unreinforced, textured geomembrane-backed GCL-faille PVC
geomembrane interface did not experience an adhesive failure for normal stresses of
400 kPa and below. However, at normal stresses above roughly 175 kPa, an adhesive
failure occurred in the unreinforced, textured geomembrane-backed GCL-textured
HDPE geomembrane interface (Eid and Stark 1997). The faille PVC geomembrane
mobilizes less shear resistance with the dry bentonite, which does not allow enough
shear stress to develop to cause an adhesive failure. However, the textured HDPE
geomembrane possesses a greater shear resistance with the dry bentonite, enabling the
shear stress required for an adhesive failure to develop. As a result, the adhesive failure
in the unreinforced GCL-textured HDPE geomembrane interface reduces the peak and
residual shear strengths so, at normal stresses greater than approximately 175 kPa, the
unreinforced, textured HDPE geomembrane-backed GCL-textured HDPE and faille
PVC geomembrane interfaces yield similar peak and residual friction angles.
10
CONCLUSIONS
The present paper describes torsional ring shear and large-scale direct shear test results
on PVC geomembrane-geosynthetic interfaces. Tables 1 and 2 present a database of
peak and residual PVC geomembrane interface strengths, respectively, that can be
used for comparison purposes. The following conclusions are based on the data and
interpretations presented in the present paper:
1. The interface shear strengths obtained from torsional ring shear tests are in agreement with those obtained from large-scale direct shear tests at a normal stress of
192 or 200 kPa for the interfaces considered. Therefore, it was assumed that the
ring shear device could be used as a substitute for the large-scale direct shear apparatus as permitted by ASTM D 5321 for the other normal stresses tested during this
research.
2. The smooth side of a PVC geomembrane provides higher peak and residual interface
shear resistances than the faille side. Additionally, there was no noticeable post-peak
strength loss for the smooth PVC geomembrane interfaces. The greater frictional
resistance of the smooth side of a PVC geomembrane is attributed to a higher pliability/flexibility and larger contact area with the overlying geosynthetic than the
faille side. The higher pliability of the smooth side also accounts for the negligible
post-peak strength loss in smooth PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces. Since the faille side yielded lower interface shear resistances than the smooth
side, the databases in Tables 1 and 2 focus on faille PVC geomembrane interfaces
in order to provide lower bound values of peak and residual interface strengths.
24
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
3. Faille PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces exhibit smaller post-peak
strength losses than the textured HDPE and textured VFPE geomembrane interfaces
tested during the present study. Textured HDPE geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile
interfaces exhibit post-peak strength losses of 50 to 60% and textured VFPE
geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces 35 to 45% as compared to less than
25% for the faille PVC geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces considered in
the present paper. The textured geomembranes exhibit a larger post-peak strength
loss because the texturing tears or pulls out more geotextile fibers and the texturing
is smoothed or polished during shear (Stark et al. 1996). Faille PVC geomembranenonwoven geotextile interfaces do not exhibit a post-peak strength loss at normal
stresses less than 50 kPa. The post-peak strength loss at higher normal stresses (100
to 400 kPa) appears to be caused by the tearing or pulling out of geotextile fibers that
have embedded into the pliable faille PVC geomembrane. At low normal stresses,
the geotextile fibers are unable to sufficiently embed into the faille PVC geomembrane, which reduces fiber damage and post-peak strength loss.
4. Fiber composition and type appears to impact the PVC geomembrane-nonwoven
geotextile interface shear strength. A PET-based nonwoven geotextile yielded
higher peak and residual interface shear strengths when sheared against the faille
PVC geomembrane surface than a PP-based nonwoven geotextile of the same
weight. This is probably caused by differences in fiber properties, such as hardness,
roughness, weight, and diameter. This trend has also been observed for textured
HDPE geomembrane-nonwoven geotextile interfaces (Stark et al. 1996). Additionally, a staple fiber nonwoven geotextile yielded higher interface strengths than continuous single fiber nonwoven geotextiles for the faille PVC geomembrane
interfaces tested herein. This result is the subject of additional research but one possible explanation for this result is that the continuous single fiber is longer and larger
than a staple fiber and, thus, has a higher contact area with the PVC geomembrane,
which causes more fibers to be removed from the geotextile.
5. A nonwoven geotextile with a mass per unit area of 205 g/m2 yields higher peak
interface strengths than a 540 g/m2 geotextile for the faille PVC geomembrane surface tested herein. This result is attributed to the heavier geotextile having more
fibers in contact with the PVC geomembrane, which results in a greater number of
fibers being pulled out and oriented parallel to the direction of shear than the 205 g/
m2 geotextile.
6. Calendering a nonwoven geotextile produces greater interface shear strength with
the faille PVC geomembrane tested herein than a nonwoven geotextile that is not
calendered. This appears to be caused by the rougher surface of the calendered geotextile being able to embed further into the pliable PVC geomembrane surface than
the non-calendered geotextile.
7. The faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface yields higher shear
strengths than the faille PVC geomembrane-geonet (without a geotextile) interface.
The extra geotextile in the drainage composite interface results in a higher shear
resistance than the geonet interface. The higher interface strength appears to be
caused by a greater contact area (geonet ribs acting through the geotextile plus the
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
25
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
geotextile) than only the geonet ribs.
8. The faille PVC geomembrane-drainage composite interface yields a similar peak
shear strength as the corresponding textured HDPE geomembrane interface and
undergoes a smaller post-peak strength loss because of less damage to the geotextile
bonded to the geonet.
9. The use of a PVC geomembrane to encapsulate an unreinforced, smooth HDPE
geomembrane-backed GCL results in an interface strength that is stress dependent.
At normal stresses of 50 kPa and below, failure occurs at the dry bentonite-faille PVC
geomembrane interface and results in average peak and residual friction angles of
approximately 26 and 21°, respectively. However, at normal stresses greater than
approximately 100 kPa, the failure surface shifts to the smooth geomembrane backing-dry bentonite interface because an adhesive failure occurs within the unreinforced
GCL. This adhesive failure reduces the average interface peak and residual friction
angles to approximately 16 and 11°, respectively. Use of a textured HDPE geomembrane backing in the unreinforced GCL mobilizes a larger shear resistance on the
geomembrane backing-dry bentonite interface. This allows higher peak and residual
shear strengths to develop than for the smooth geomembrane-backed GCL interface.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
GSE Lining Technology, Inc. of Houston, Texas, USA, Serrot International, Inc. of
Henderson, Nevada, USA, and Canadian General Tower, Ltd. of Cambridge, Ontario,
Canada provided the geosynthetics used in the present study. The support of these
organizations is gratefully acknowledged. The second author also acknowledges the
support provided by a University of Illinois Scholar Award.
REFERENCES
ASTM D 5321, “Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and
Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear
Method”, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
Bove, J.A., 1990, “Direct Shear Friction Testing for Geosynthetics in Waste Containment”, Geosynthetic Testing for Waste Containment Applications, Koerner, R.M.,
Editor, ASTM Special Publication 1081, proceedings of a symposium held in Las
Vegas, Nevada, USA, January 1990, pp. 241-256.
Byrne, R.J., Kendall, J. and Brown, S., 1992, “Cause and Mechanism of Failure, Kettle
man Hills Landfill B-19, Unit IA”, Stability and Performance of Slopes and
Embankments-II, Seed, R.B. and Boulanger, R.W., Editors, Geotechnical Special
Publication No. 31, ASCE, 1992, proceedings of a specialty conference held in
Berkeley, California, USA, Vol. 2, pp. 1188-1215.
Dove, J.E. and Frost, J.D., 1999, “Peak Friction Behavior of Smooth Geomembrane-
26
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Particle Interfaces”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 7, pp. 544-555.
Eid, H.T. and Stark, T.D., 1997, “Shear Behavior of an Unreinforced Geosynthetic
Clay Liner”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, No. 6, pp. 645-659.
Koerner, R.M., Martin, J.P., and Koerner, G.R., 1986, “Shear Strength Parameters
Between Geomembranes and Cohesive Soils”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,
Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 21-30.
Martin, J.P., Koerner, R.M., and Whitty, J.E., 1984, “Experimental Friction Evaluation
of Slippage Between Geomembranes, Geotextiles, and Soils”, Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 191196.
Mitchell, J.K., Seed, R.B., and Seed, H.B., 1990, “Kettleman Hills Waste Landfill
Slope Failure I: Liner-System Properties”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 647-668.
Negussey, D., Wijewickreme, W.K.D., and Vaid, Y. P., 1989, “Geomembrane Interface
Friction”, Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 26, No. 1, pp. 165-169.
O’Rourke, T.D., Druschel, S.J., and Netravali, A.N., 1990, “Shear Strength Characteristics of Sand Polymer Interfaces”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 116, No. 3, pp. 451-469.
Saxena, S.K. and Wong, Y.T., 1984, “Friction Characteristics of a Geomembrane”,
Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 187-190.
Seed, R.B. and Boulanger, R.W., 1991, “Smooth HDPE-Clay Liner Interface Shear
Strengths: Compaction Effects”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol.
117, No. 4, pp. 686-693.
Seed, R.B., Mitchell, J.K., and Seed, H.B., 1990, “Kettleman Hills Waste Landfill
Slope Failure II: Stability Analysis”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering,
Vol. 116, No. 4, pp. 669-689.
Stark, T.D., 1999, “Stability of Waste Containment Facilities”, Proceedings of Waste
Tech ’99, National Solid Wastes Management Association, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 1999, pp. 1-24.
Stark, T.D. and Poeppel, A.R., 1994, “Landfill Liner Interface Strengths From Torsional-Ring-Shear Tests”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 120,
No. 3, pp. 597-615.
Stark, T.D., Williamson, T.A., and Eid, H.T., 1996, “HDPE Geomembrane/Geotextile
Interface Shear Strength”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 122,
No. 3, pp. 197-203.
Takasumi, D.L., Green, K.R., and Holtz, R.D., 1991, “Soil-Geosynthetic Interface
Strength Characteristics: A Review of State-of-the-Art Testing Procedures”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’91, IFAI, Vol. 1, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, February
1991, pp. 87-100.
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2
27
HILLMAN AND STARK • Shear Strength of PVC Geomembrane-Geosynthetic Interfaces
Williams, N.D. and Houlihan, M.F., 1987, “Evaluation of Interface Friction Properties
Between Geosynthetics and Soils”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’87, IFAI, Vol. 2,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 1987, pp. 616-627.
Yegian, M.K. and Lahlaf, A.M., 1992, “Discussion of ‘Kettleman Hills Waste Landfill
Slope Failure I: Liner-System Properties’ ”, ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 118, No. 4, pp. 643-645
28
GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL • 2001, VOL. 8, NO. 2