HDPE Geomembrane/Geotextile Interface Shear Strength

Stark, Timothy D.; Williamson, Thomas A.; Eid, Hisham T.

doi:10.1061/(asce)0733-9410(1996)122:3(197)

Cited by 117 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Triplett and Fox (2001) performed direct shear tests over a shearing rate range of 0.01¿10 mm W min to investigate the eŠect of horizontal displacement rate on peak and large displacement shear strength of the geomembrane and GCLs. They found no eŠect of displacement rate on shear strength, which was in agreement with previously published data indicating that shear strength of a T-GM W nonwoven geotextile interface is independent of displacement rate (Stark et al, 1996). The horizontal load required to maintain the chosen shearing rate was measured by a load cell and displayed on a digital transducer readout.…”

Section: Direct Shear Testssupporting

confidence: 89%

Evaluation of Interface Shear Strength between Geosynthetics Under Wet Condition

Seo¹,

Park

2007

Soils and Foundations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Direct Shear Testssupporting

confidence: 89%

Evaluation of Interface Shear Strength between Geosynthetics Under Wet Condition

Seo¹,

Park

2007

Soils and Foundations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…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%

“…The means to grip the different geosynthetics inside the shear box and the suitable test parameters (shear displacement rate, consolidation time and hydration time) were established based on studies from Stark and Poeppel (1994), Stark et al (1996), Fox et al (1997), Jones and Dixon (1998), Fox et al (1998), Eid et al (1999), Triplett and Fox (2001), Zornberg et al (2005), Sharma et al (2007) and McCartney et al (2009). The relationships analysed were the interface shear strength versus shear displacement, the shear displacement versus normal displacement and the interface shear strength versus normal stress.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

“…A decrease in friction angle by 5° is assumed at all interfaces at 2 and 5 mm relative 483 displacements for GSY-GSY and GSY-soil interfaces, respectively. The peak shear strength of 484 interfaces involving GSYs is reached between 2 and 8 mm of displacement (Stark and Poeppel,485 1994, Stark et al, 1996). The peak shear strength of the GSY-GSY interface is rapidly reached 486 near 2 mm of displacement and that of the GSY-soil interface at about 5 mm of displacement(sometimes more).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical modeling of the nonlinear mechanical behavior of multilayer geosynthetic system for piggyback landfill expansions

Tano

Dias

Fowmes

et al. 2016

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Citation: TANO, F. ...et al., Numerical modelling of the nonlinear mechanical behavior of multilayer geosynthetic system for piggyback landfill expansions.Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 44 (6), pp. 782-798.Additional Information:• This paper was accepted for publication in the journal Geotextiles of the GSYs and of the interfaces between GSYs must be considered. Designers, however, often 31 use simplistic assumptions without further analyzing the implications of these assumptions on the 32 results. Such simplifications mainly concern the nonlinear axial stiffness of GSYs, the strain 33 softening at interfaces between GSYs, and the difference between the compressive and tensile 34 behavior of GSYs. By, considering these key aspects, the present study aims to understand the 35 extent to which the results of numerical calculations can be influenced both by the differing 36 compressive and tensile behavior of GSYs and by the assumption of strain softening at interfaces 37 between GSYs. For this purpose, several numerical models are implemented by using the finite-38 difference code FLAC 2D on a typical PBLE that involves four GSYs and six interfaces. The 39 present work also applies comprehensive, state-of-the-art numerical modelling to study the 40 interactions between multiple layers of GSYs. This study also investigates the nonlinear axial 41 stiffness of GSYs through a series of uniaxial tensile tests. The numerical results show that, if the 42 GSY axial compressive and tensile characteristics are the same, then tensile force is minimized, 43 which induces significant compressive force in the GSYs. The results also indicate that 44 3 neglecting strain softening at the interface between GSYs affects interface shear stresses, 45 displacements of GSYs at the interface, and the GSY force distribution, potentially rendering the 46 model unrealistic. Including strain softening, however, allows the assessment (location) of 47 unstable areas along the interface where large displacements occur. 48 49

show abstract

HDPE Geomembrane/Geotextile Interface Shear Strength

Cited by 117 publications

References 1 publication

Evaluation of Interface Shear Strength between Geosynthetics Under Wet Condition

Evaluation of Interface Shear Strength between Geosynthetics Under Wet Condition

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Numerical modeling of the nonlinear mechanical behavior of multilayer geosynthetic system for piggyback landfill expansions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About