Interface shear strength of geosynthetics: Evaluation and analysis of inclined plane tests
Introduction
Liners systems are used at the base and cover of waste landfills and can be constructed combining different components such as geosynthetics and soil. The liner system is designed taking into account the different functions and the efficiency of materials used. In cover liner systems, for example, these components are used (see Fig. 1) to serve one or several purposes, such as water tightness (geomembrane and compacted clay liner), drainage (geospacer), filtration (geotextile) and protection (cover soil). When these systems are built on the sloping sides of landfills they will likely to be unstable since landfill slopes are often steep and many interfaces present relatively low friction and can induce potential slip surfaces.
Several failures of sloping liners have occurred in the past (Koerner and Soong, 2000) and consequently the stability of these composite systems have been increasingly investigated. The direct shear apparatus, which is used for soil testing, is often employed to measure interface shear resistance. However, the test is not easy to be carried out under the low normal stress levels usual in some field conditions such as banks of reservoirs, lined canals and landfills cover. In these cases, the inclined plane test (IPT) is commonly performed to measure the interface shear strength (Chung et al., 2006, Ling et al., 2002, Narejo, 2003, Palmeira et al., 2002, Wasti and Ozduzgun, 2001, Wu et al., 2008). The IPT can be performed according to GRI test method GRI GS-7 (1991) or ISO test method ISO 12957-2 (2005). According to this latter Standard, the IPT provides the interface friction angle that is associated to a conventional displacement of 50 mm and that has been represented by (Briançon, 2002, Briançon et al., 2002, Lalarakotoson et al., 1999, Purwanto, 1996).
It has been shown (Gourc et al., 2006) that thoroughly study of the diagram of the tangential displacement along the interface (δ), as a function of the inclination (β), enables distinguishing the behavior of interfaces displaying the same standard friction angle.
The present study extends the previous work by Gourc and Reyes-Ramírez (2004) on geosynthetic–geosynthetic interfaces including the behavior of compacted soil and geosynthetic interfaces and more complete test interpretation, especially of the entire dynamic phase of sliding. This has allowed to interpret test results according to the initial friction angle (ϕ0), corresponding to the beginning of movement at static conditions and the limit friction angle (ϕlim), measured during the uniformly accelerated movement that takes place as the dynamic condition of sliding developed.
Section snippets
Inclined plane device
The typical parts of the inclined plane test are shown in Fig. 2. In Fig. 2a, it is illustrated the case of testing of the interface shear strength between geosynthetic, which is installed bonded to the base plane (0.80 m × 1.30 m), and soil, which fills the upper box. In Fig. 2b it is shown the special arrangement for testing the soil and soil interface. In both kinds of tests, the base plane is raised at a constant speed (dβ/dt = 3°/min), measuring the relative tangential displacement (δ) of the
Performance of geotextile–compacted soil interfaces (reference tests)
In the first series of tests, the experiments were conducted using some geosynthetics known for their low friction resistance. These results will be used as reference for the denoted “Reinforced Geomats” (geotextile + geomat). Four different materials were selected (Table 1):
- •
Needlepunched nonwoven geotextile (“GT needlepunched”);
- •
Heatbonded nonwoven geotextile (“GT heatbonded”);
- •
Polypropylene woven geotextile (“GT woven”);
- •
High density polyethylene geomembrane (“GM hdpe”).
The tests were repeated
Conclusions
This study leads to the following major conclusions:
- •
It was possible to distinguish the friction behavior of different compacted soil–geosynthetics interfaces under low values of normal stress using the inclined plane test.
- •
The shape of the inclination angle–displacement graphics is instructive and the difference between “sudden sliding” and “gradual sliding” is easy to correlate to the gap between ϕ0 and ϕlim. In general a “gradual sliding” is more conservative than a “sudden sliding” for a
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the French-Brazilian Cofecub-Capes agreement for financial support.
References (18)
- et al.
Slope stability of lining systems: experimental modeling of friction at geosynthetic interfaces
Geotextiles and Geomembranes
(2002) A simple tilt table device to measure index friction angle of geosynthetics
Geotextiles and Geomembranes
(2003)- et al.
Geomembrane–geotextile interface shear properties as determined by inclined board and direct shear box tests
Geotextiles and Geomembranes
(2001) - et al.
A tilt table device for testing geosynthetic interfaces in centrifuge
Geotextiles and Geomembranes
(2008) - Briançon, L., 2002. Friction at geosynthetic interfaces under hydraulic conditions: new inclined plane test procedures...
- et al.
Protective effect of overlying geosynthetic on geomembrane liner observed from landfill field tests and inclined board laboratory experiments
Waste Management Research
(2006) Geosynthetic – Determination of Friction Characteristics, Part 2: Tilted Plane Test
(2005)- et al.
Dynamics-based interpretation of the interface friction test at the inclined plane
Geosynthetics International
(2004) - Gourc, J.P., Pitanga, H.N., Reyes-Ramírez, R., Jarousseau, C., 2006. Questions raised regarding interpretation of...
Cited by (69)
Investigation of effects of repose angle and critical sliding angle of snow on curved roofs
2022, Journal of Wind Engineering and Industrial AerodynamicsInfluence of micro and macroroughness of geomembrane surfaces on soil-geomembrane and geotextile-geomembrane interface strength
2022, Geotextiles and GeomembranesCharacterisation of geomembrane and geotextile interface short-term creep behaviour in a dry condition
2022, Geotextiles and GeomembranesPerformance issues of barrier systems for landfills: A review
2021, Geotextiles and GeomembranesCitation Excerpt :In fact, Reyes-Ramirez and Gourc (2003) showed that the standardized testing procedure of the IP test assessed the (standardized) friction angle from a static analysis for conditions that were actually dynamic. Pitanga et al. (2009) showed that the friction angle corresponding to the initiation of sliding and the friction angle corresponding to sliding at constant acceleration were generally lower than the standardized friction angle. However, they did not conclude on the friction angle value that should be considered for design.
Soil-geosynthetic interaction in inclined-plane shear and geosynthetic short-term tensile response – Influence of installation damage
2021, Construction and Building MaterialsOptimization of DEM parameters using multi-objective reinforcement learning
2021, Powder Technology