Shear strength properties of geomembrane/geotextile interfaces

Jones, D. R. V.; Dixon, Neil

doi:10.1016/s0266-1144(97)10022-x

Cited by 78 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The static direct shear test results, as already observed in CRD pullout tests, showed that direct sliding coefficients of interaction for dense granular soil-geogrid interface depend on the effective confining pressure [61,88,[91][92][93][94], and they are higher at lower stress levels due to dilatancy effects.…”

Section: Soil-geosynthetic Interaction In Direct Shear Tests: Experimsupporting

confidence: 70%

Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis

Moraci

Cardile

Gioffrè

et al. 2014

Transp. Infrastruct. Geotech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main objective of this paper is to discuss the experimental and theoretical approaches developed by different researchers in order to understand and to evaluate the soil geosynthetic interaction under different loading conditions. In the paper, the soil-geosynthetic interaction in pullout, direct shear, and inclined plane tests under both static and cyclic loading is analyzed based on the different theoretical and experimental results carried out by the authors and also available in literature. For each type of test, the factors affecting test results and soil-geosynthetic interface behavior, the theoretical model developed to predict the interface resistance and mobilized friction, and the relevance of the interface parameters obtained through the different tests in the design and performance of geosynthetic reinforced earth structures are discussed in detail.Keywords Geosynthetic . Interaction . Design . Laboratory tests . Modeling Transp. Infrastruct. Geotech. (2014) Grain size corresponding to 85 % in weight of passing soil (mm)Maximum grain size (mm) DrRelative density (%) f Cyclic tensile load frequency (Hz)Force required to hold back the upper box (kN)Lower support minimum length along the displacement direction (m) L R Reinforcement length in the anchorage zone (m) L U Upper box minimum length along the displacement direction (m) n t Number of geogrid bearing members n tbNumber of nodes in a transversal element P b1Maximum pullout bearing force of a single isolated transverse member (kN/m) P bn Maximum pullout bearing force (kN/m) P

show abstract

Section: Soil-geosynthetic Interaction In Direct Shear Tests: Experimsupporting

confidence: 70%

Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis

Moraci

Cardile

Gioffrè

et al. 2014

Transp. Infrastruct. Geotech.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it may be necessary to measure transverse shear strengths for cross-seams at the base of a slope, three-dimensional failure analyses, or seismic loading that mobilizes strength in this direction. Although no information has been published for GCLs or GCL interfaces, Jones and Dixon (1998) found significant differences in ô-ä relationships for a HDPE GMX sheared against a polypropylene GT in the machine and transverse directions. In-plane anisotropy is expected to be relatively small for internal strength of unreinforced GT-supported GCLs and NP GCLs.…”

Section: Strength Anisotropymentioning

confidence: 72%

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

Fox

Stark

2015

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

“…Strain-softening behaviour can be observed (Byrne 1994;Stark et al 1996;Jones and Dixon 1998) and the higher the normal stress, the higher the strainsoftening behaviour (Bacas et al 2011).…”

Section: Direct Shear Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Bacas¹,

Cañizal²,

Konietzky³

2015

Geosynthetics International

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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

show abstract

Shear strength properties of geomembrane/geotextile interfaces

Cited by 78 publications

References 5 publications

Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis

Soil Geosynthetic Interaction: Design Parameters from Experimental and Theoretical Analysis

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

Frictional behaviour of three critical geosynthetic interfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About