A numerical modelling technique for geosynthetics validated on a cavity model test
Introduction
Geotechnical constructions that involve geosynthetics, such as landfills, are traditionally designed by using limit equilibrium methods (Giroud and Beech, 1989, Koerner and Hwu, 1991). However, these methods cannot be used to assess the integrity (e.g., strain or tensile forces) (Long et al., 1995) of the construction components and do not consider whether stresses are compatible with strains and displacements (Villard et al., 1999). As an alternative, such constructions may be designed by using numerical modelling methods (Fowmes et al., 2008); these methods not only account for the above-mentioned aspects but also account for the multiple interactions between geosynthetics.
Numerical modelling techniques are becoming ever more sophisticated because today's software allows designers to consider the key aspects of the mechanical characteristics of geosynthetics (e.g., the nonlinear stiffness) and of the interfaces (e.g., strain softening). However, the reliability of such numerical results depends on the numerical modelling technique used, which in turn rests upon how the model is developed, the constitutive model, and the set of parameters used.
Whichever numerical modelling technique is used, questions exist with respect to (i) the relevance of the numerical modelling technique and therefore (ii) the reliability of the numerical results. Consequently, to answer such questions, numerical results should be confirmed by comparing them with experimental data. In the context of landfills, and particularly for piggy-back landfill expansions where a new landfill is built over an older one, such verification is essential because of the interactions between the various materials, such as clay, sand, gravel, geosynthetic, and waste (Tano and Olivier, 2014).
Unfortunately, limited studies that addressed the comparison of the experimental behaviour of multilayered geosynthetic lining systems with that predicted by numerical models are available (Fowmes et al., 2008). To the best of our knowledge, only three studies (Villard et al., 1999, Fowmes et al., 2008 and Zamara et al. (2014)) compare experimental results of multilayered geosynthetics with numerical results of models of landfill lining systems.
This work aims to verify a numerical modelling technique by comparing it with three experimental tests: a tensile test, a direct-shear test, and a large-scale large test. These tests were developed to assess the mechanical behaviour of a reinforced geosynthetic lining system.
Prior to discussing the details of the verification process, the previous studies of Villard et al., 1999, Fowmes et al., 2008 and Zamara et al. (2014) are further discussed in the following section. The benefits and limitations of these studies provide a framework for the present study and lead us to develop a new modelling technique.
Section snippets
Background
Villard et al. (1999) applied finite-element modelling to describe a veneer cover of a landfill and to better understand the distribution of forces and strains within a geotextile (GTX) and geomembrane (GMB) placed at the bottom and on side slopes of the landfill. The forces within the GTX were measured by force sensors positioned at the top of the slope. A cable-type displacement (extensometer wires) was used to measure the geosynthetic displacements and then the strains were calculated from
Uniaxial tensile test device
The UTT is a simple test used to assess tensile behaviour of a material. Geosynthetic manufacturers generally systematically subject all products to UTTs to determine their quality. However, complete tensile curves are rarely provided. Therefore, the authors performed additional tensile tests to obtain the complete tensile curves. In these tests, a geosynthetic specimen is subjected to a constant tensile deformation rate along a given axis and the resulting forces and strains within the
Material, geosynthetic and interface properties
This study considers a lining system made of a GTX, a GMB, a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL), and a GGR reinforcement embedded in a dense material. Sand was used to simulate this dense material. The full properties of these geosynthetics, materials, and of the interfaces between the various materials are presented below.
Numerical modelling technique
As mentioned in section 2, Tano et al. (2016a) proposed a numerical model technique to simulate the behaviour of a multilayered geosynthetic lining system in the context of piggy-back landfill expansions. This technique was based on five criteria (CR1 to CR5). In the present study, the authors use this same numerical modelling technique (Tano et al., 2016a) to model the three experimental tests (UTT, DST, and LSTA). However, CR2 is not considered herein because none of the three experimental
Numerical modelling versus experimental results
This section compares the results of numerical modelling with experimental results and discusses these comparisons for the three experimental tests (UTTs, DSTs, and LSTA).
Conclusions
Numerical modelling can be used to aid in the design of geotechnical constructions involving geosynthetics (geosynthetics), such as landfills. However, the reliability of the numerical results depends on how the model is developed and on the parameter set that is used.
The present work develops a procedure to analyze multilayered-lining systems by using a 2D finite-difference method. The accuracy of this numerical modelling technique is then verified by comparing its results with those obtained
Acknowledgments
The authors thank Didier Croissant (Irstea, Antony, France) and P. Mailler (IFTH, France) for their assistance during in carrying out the various tensile tests. Special thanks are also due to H. Mora and J.-M. Miscioscia (LTHE, Grenoble, France) for manufacturing the large-scale experiment apparatus used in this study. Finally, the authors thank J. Bruhier at Huesker, France for providing us with the geogrid, geotextile, and geosynthetic clay liner products used in this study.
References (34)
- et al.
Controlling strain in geosynthetic liner systems used in vertically expanded landfills
J. Rock Mech. Geotechnical Eng.
(2009) - et al.
Validation of a numerical modelling technique for multilayered geosynthetic landfill lining systems
Geotext. Geomembranes
(2008) Mathematical model of geomembrane stress-strain curves with a yield peak
Geotext. Geomembranes
(1994)- et al.
Numerical analysis of a geosynthetic-reinforced piled load transfer platform – validation on centrifuge test
Geotext. Geomembranes
(2014) - et al.
Landfill lining stability and integrity: the role of waste settlement
Geotextile Geomembranes
(2005) - et al.
Stability and tension considerations regarding cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes
Geotext. Geomembranes
(1991) - et al.
Experimental studies of the geosynthetic anchorage – effect of geometric parameters and efficiency of anchorages
Geotext. Geomembranes
(2014) - et al.
Numerical modeling of the nonlinear mechanical behaviour of multilayer geosynthetic system for piggy-back landfill expansion
Geotext. Geomembranes
(2016) - et al.
Analysis of geosynthetic lining systems (GLS) undergoing large deformations
Geotext. Geomembranes
(1999) - et al.
A mathematical model for the strain-rate dependent stress-strain response of HDPE geomembranes
Geotext. Geomembranes
(2004)
Landfill side slope lining system performance: a comparison of field measurements and numerical modelling analyses
Geotext. Geomembranes
Geomembrane tensions and strains resulting from differential settlement around rigid circular structures
Geotext. Geomembranes
NF P94–056: Sols - reconnaissance et essais - Analyse granulométrique - Méthode par tamisage à sec après lavage
NF EN ISO 9862: Géosynthétiques - Échantillonnage et préparation des éprouvettes
NF EN ISO 9864: Géosynthétiques - Méthode d'essai pour la détermination de la masse surfacique des géotextiles et produits apparentés
NF EN ISO 10319: Géosynthétiques - Essai de traction des bandes larges
NF EN 12311–2: Feuilles souples d'étanchéité - Détermination des propriétés en traction - Partie 2: Feuilles d'étanchéité de toiture plastiques et élastomères
Cited by (9)
Performance issues of barrier systems for landfills: A review
2021, Geotextiles and GeomembranesGeosynthetic reinforced piled embankment modeling using discrete and continuum approaches
2021, Geotextiles and GeomembranesCitation Excerpt :In FLAC3D, the geotextile is modelled by an isotropic linear elastic material with E is the Young's modulus and t is the thickness of the geotextile. A Poisson's ratio equal to 0.3, similar to the studies of Han and Gabr (2002), Liu et al. (2007) (Tano et al., 2016; Tano et al., 2017; Girout et al., 2014), and Pham et al. (2018) is considered. For comparison, two types of elements (‘liner’ and ‘geogrid’ elements) are compared in this study.
Determination of geomembrane – protective geotextile friction angle: An insight into the shear rate effect
2020, Geotextiles and GeomembranesCitation Excerpt :To test a soil-geosynthetic interface, the geosynthetic is anchored on the horizontal plane, underneath the upper box, which is filled with the soil to be tested and loaded by a vertical jack to create a relatively high normal stress (i.e., generally greater than 50 kPa). More details about this testing procedure are available in Tano et al. (2017b). To test a geosynthetic-geosynthetic interface, the upper geosynthetic is put in the upper box in a U shape and then filled with a standardised sand and loaded by a vertical jack.
Creep Performance of Geosynthetic Reinforcements
2020, Engineering, Technology and Applied Science ResearchStrain-softening model evaluating geobelt–clay interaction validated by laboratory tests of sensor-enabled geobelts
2020, Canadian Geotechnical Journal