Soil-geosynthetic interaction:

Obtaining strength parameters

for design

Professor Neil Dixon

Loughborough University, UK
 Contents
• Importance of interface shear behaviour
• Methods of measurement
• Factors influencing interface behaviour
• Which parameters should be used in design?
• Variability of measured behaviour
• Obtaining interface shear strength parameters for design
• What are the implications of variability on design?
• Summary and the future
 The presentation will not cover….
• Interaction between grids and soil
• Pull out testing
• Specific issues related to testing GCLs
• And lots of other things……
• Experience of audience?
Importance of interface
shear behaviour
 Interface shear strength

• Why is knowledge of interface strength

important?
 Geosynthetics introduce a potential weak plane
 Overall stability is controlled by shear strength
developed between geosynthetic/geosynthetic
and geosynthetic/soil
 Integrity of the geosynthetic is controlled by shear
strength either side
 Stability and integrity
• Stability
 Ultimate limit state
 Complete loss of stability
 “Large” scale movement

• Integrity
 Serviceability limit state
 Loss of function (e.g. overstressing, tearing,
increased permeability etc.)
 “Small” scale movement
Design issues: Stability, unconfined
 Interface shear strength
• For a soil:
  = c + n . tan
where c and  are the shear strength parameters, the
cohesion intercept and the friction angle

• For a geosynthetic:
  =  + n . tan
where  and  are the interface shear strength parameters,
the cohesion intercept and the friction angle
 Peak and residual shear strength
120
Peak shear strength

80
Residual (or large
strain) shear
strength
60

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacements (mm)
Peak and residual shear strength

Peak Shear Strength

Envelope p

r
Residual Shear
p Strength Envelope

Normal Stress (kPa)

Methods of measurement
Factors influencing interface strength
• Material properties: Geosynthetic and soil
• Testing apparatus design and size
• Normal stress
• Shearing rate
• Geosynthetic attachment
• Moisture conditions
• Drainage conditions
• Temperature……
Common interface shear behaviour
(after Marr 2001)
 Measurement: Direct shear
• Small boxes 60x60mm2 and 100x100mm2 (index
testing and possibly acceptable for some interfaces)
• Large boxes 300x300mm2 and 300x400mm2
(performance testing, most commonly used)
• Full range of normal stresses (e.g. 5kPa to +400kPa)
• Granular soils and large geosynthetic samples can be
accommodated
• Easy to use but limited displacements
• Wide range of designs (influences measured
behaviour)
 Direct shear apparatus (DSA)

Normal Force
Cover Soil
Geotextile
Clamp Geomembrane
Shear
Force

Rigid sub-stratum
 Direct shear apparatus
(modified soil mechanics device: top box rotates)

a)

P
a)
Direct shear apparatus
(designed for geosynthetics: fixed top box)
T

P
b)

P
c)

computer regulation
 Direct shear apparatus
(designed for geosynthetics: fixed top box)
Low normal stress system

Soil free
to move in
top box (!)

Top box
fully
fixed
 Direct shear apparatus
(for geosynthetics: vertically moveable top box)

Top box
a)
can move
vertically
during T
shearing
s

Linear
bearings to b)
P

ensure no V

rotation of
top box
Variation in normal stress
40
Shear Stress (kPa)

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Measured Normal Stress (kPa)
 DSA results: Smooth geomembrane
vs. geotextile
30

200 kPa
20
Shear stress (kPa)

100 kPa
10

25 kPa
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
DSA results: Textured geomembrane
vs. geotextile
120

80

200 kPa
60
100 kPa

25 kPa
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacements (mm)
Measurement: Tilting table apparatus

• No consensus of opinion as to what size

should be used (box length is important)
• Only peak friction angle measured
• No shear stress/displacement information
• No residual friction angle
• Limited use (low normal stresses only)
• Relevant for veneer type problems
 Tilting table apparatus

(Gourc et al. 2006)

Tilting table apparatus
 Tilting table results

(Gourc et al. 2006)

Ring shear apparatus (RSA)
Measurement: Ring shear apparatus

• Unlimited displacement - true residual shear

strengths
• Full stress range can be accommodated
• Direction of shearing not comparable to field
• Peak shear strengths not reliable
• Cannot use granular materials or large
geosynthetics
 Bromhead ring shear apparatus

Rotational
shear between
upper and
lower annular
samples of
geosynthetic

Matched proving rings

Residual strength measured using RSA

100
Shear Stress (kPa)

50

0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000
Displacement (mm)
Residual shear strength: Comparison of
DSA and RSA test methods

100
Peak strength
Residual strength from DSA
Shear Stress (kPa)

Residual strength from RSA

50

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
Normal Stress (kPa)
Factors influencing interface
behaviour
 Test standards
• ASTM D5321.08 - Performance testing for soil vs.
geosynthetic and geosynthetic vs. geosynthetic
interfaces (comprehensive guidance)
• BS 6906:1991 – Covers mainly index tests for sand
and geosynthetic interfaces (out of date)
• BS EN ISO 12957-1:2005 - Index tests only for sand
vs. geosynthetic (no use for design)
• GDA E3-8 is specifically devoted to landfill design
(only in German)
• A comparison of specifications is provided in Dixon
(2010)
Key factors influencing measured behaviour
• Design of direct shear device….
• Test set up (e.g. method of clamping/restraining the
geosynthetic, gap size between top and bottom boxes,
dry or submerged conditions, material in top box used
to transmit normal stress to interface, shearing rate,
temperature, normal stress range….)
• Variability of materials, direction of shearing, number of
tests….
• SOIL MECHANICS ! (density, maximum particle size,
consolidation, drained or undrained shearing, pore
water pressures, volume changes….)
Textured geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Dry tests
120
Shear Stress (kPa)

80

40

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Textured geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Dry and Submerged Tests
120
Tested dry

Tested submerged
Shear Stress (kPa)

80

40

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Dry tests
Shear stress (kPa)

Displacement (mm)
Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Dry and submerged tests

Tested submerged
Shear stress (kPa)

Tested dry

Displacement (mm)
 Influence of cover soil on measured
geotextile vs. drainage core shear strength
24
Normal stress 51 kPa
20

16
Nylon block
12

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
 Influence of cover soil on measured
geotextile vs. drainage core shear strength
24
Normal stress 51 kPa
20
Sand
16
Nylon block
12

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
 Influence of cover soil on measured
geotextile vs. drainage core shear strength
24
Normal stress 51 kPa
20
Sand
16
Nylon block
12

8
Clay
4

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
 Measurement of internal interface shear
strength of a geocomposite material

Heat bonded
geotextile
Cuspated glued to
rigid central central core
core clamped and clamped
to bottom box to top box
Measurement of internal interface shear
strength of a geocomposite material
60
Loss in strength due to
Shear Stress (kPa)

failure of glued connection

50

40
n = 51kPa
30

20
n = 26kPa
10
n = 10kPa

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Geotextile vs. glued core: Peak and
residual strength envelopes
60

50 Strength parameters

40
Peak
p = 38 kPa
Shear Stress (kPa)

p = 14
30

20 Residual
r = 5 kPa
r = 23
10

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Normal Stress (kPa)
Peak and residual best fit straight
line failure envelopes
Shear Stress (kPa) 200

100

0
0 100 200
Normal Stress (kPa)
Peak strength best fit second
order polynomial
Shear Stress (kPa) 200

100

0
0 100 200
Normal Stress (kPa)
Peak strength extrapolation from
height to low normal stresses
200
Inappropriate
use of tests at
high normal
Shear Stress (kPa)

stresses for a
low normal stress
100 problem e.g .
cover design

0
0 100 200
Normal Stress (kPa)
Should adhesion () values be used (1) ?

The following conditions can produce an „adhesion‟ value:

• An interface with a shear strength at zero normal stress
e.g. textured geomembrane/non-woven geotextile (use
the  value in design)
• A best fit straight line through data forming a curved
failure envelope (use the  value in design if the tests
were carried out over an appropriate normal stress
range)
Should adhesion () values be used (2) ?

• Incorrect measurement of shear strength resulting from

the design and/or operation of the test equipment e.g.
fixed top box
• Best fit straight line located through a limited number of
data points with scatter about the mean value for each
normal stress (use  values in design with care)
Which parameters should be
used in design?
(peak, residual or
somewhere in between)
 Mechanisms resulting in post-peak
reductions in strength (1)

• Wear of geosynthetic/geosynthetic interfaces

 Combing of fibres destroying Velcro® effect
 Polishing of surfaces and reduction/removal of asperities
(roughening and ploughing of the surface can result in increased
interface strength)

• Soil/geosynthetic interfaces can also suffer from the above

mechanisms of wear, plus the following:
 Dilatency of soil in the shear zone
 Realignment of clay particles parallel to the interface
 Mechanisms resulting in post-peak
reductions in strength (2)

• Loss of internal shear strength in geocomposites and GCL

 Failure of needle punched fibres, stitching and glued connections

• All these mechanisms require relative shear displacement

of the two materials forming the interface
• Changes that occur with no relative displacement may
result in changes to both peak and residual strengths
 Changes in soil density and moisture content
 Extrusion of bentonite from a GCL
 Temperature change
 Mobilising post-peak strengths
• Construction related:
 Dragging geosynthetics to position them
 Construction plant loads during placement of veneer soil layers
on slopes
 Compaction of fine grained soils above geosynthetics
 Improper storage and handling
• Landfill operation related:
 Placement of waste on side slopes (same as soil veneers)
 Settlement of waste adjacent to interface
 Differential settlement of sub-grade
 Use peak or residual strength?
The answer is site specific:
• Consider all possible mechanisms and fully justify
the approach taken
• Relate the selected parameters to the factor of safety
required
• Consider both stability and integrity
• Even if global instability does not occur it is possible
to have large relative displacements between lining
components (integrity failure) which could lead to
loss of continuity and hence function (protection,
drainage)
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
Development of post peak shear
strength: Veneer slope

Shear stress
Displacement
 Waste settlement generated post peak
interface strengths (Jones 1999)
3
Waste slope 1:3
1

Height = 30m
1
3

Back slope = 1:3

Base thickness = 3m

Base length = 100m

Front width = 3m

Note the large interface displacement

Maximum settlement ~ 6 m
Variability of measured behaviour
 Uncertainty of test results!

Results from German inter laboratory comparison tests on non-

woven geotextile vs. sand interface (Blumel and Stoewahse 1998)
 German direct shear
Inter-comparison tests

1995
1996
Shear Stress (kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

 European inter-comparison shear tests: Sand
vs. non-woven geotextile
Shear Stress (kPa)

Each test was carried out

at a different laboratory
(normal stress = 100 kPa)

Horizontal Displacement (mm)

(Gourc 1997)
 European inter-comparison shear tests: Sand
vs. geotextile peak strength

Each failure envelope was

obtained by a different
laboratory
Shear Stress (kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

(Gourc 1997)
Comparison of Different Shear Device
Designs: Geomembrane vs. Geotextile
Peak Strength (Blumel et al. 2000)
Fixed top box (LU)
Fixed top box (HU)
n controlled
Vertically free
Shear Stress (kPa)

Normal Stress (kPa)

Repeatability shear tests for one DSA and
operator: Geotextile vs. sand

Normal Stress
200 kPa
150 100 kPa
Vertically Moveable 50 kPa
Top Box 25 kPa
10 kPa
100

50

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Horizontal Displacement (mm)
(Stoewahse 2001)
Variability from repeatability tests
inter-laboratory comparison test 1995
inter-laboratory comparison test 1996
Hanover University, repeatability tests
Loughborough University, repeatability tests

interface
60
geotextile vs. geomembrane
50
coeff. of variation [%]

40

30

20

10

0
0 50 100 150 200 250
 [kPa]

interface
 Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Repeatability tests

20 20
n= 10 kPa
20
n= 20 kPa n= 30 kPa
16 16 16
Shear Stress (kPa)

12 12 12

8 8 8
4 4 4
0 0 0
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
Displacement (mm)
Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Repeatability tests

40
Mean
95% confidence limit on data
95% confidence limit on mean
30
Shear Stress (kPa)

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (kPa)
Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Repeatability tests

40
Mean
95% confidence limit on data
95% confidence limit on mean
30
Shear Stress (kPa)

Possible best
fit lines
20 through three
random data
points
10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (kPa)
Smooth geomembrane vs. geotextile:
Repeatability tests

40
Mean
95% confidence limit on data
95% confidence limit on mean
30
Shear Stress (kPa)

Possible best
fit lines
20 through three
random data
points
10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Normal Stress (kPa)
 Variability of gravel/non-woven geotextile
interface: Data base and repeatability values
300
Global
G4
Interlab
200
p (kPa)

G3
G2
100 G1

0
Gravel-NW Geotextile
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Normal stress, n (kPa)
76
 Variability of gravel/non-woven geotextile
interface: Data base and repeatability values
300
300
Global
Global
Interlab G4
G4
200 Interlab
Repeatability
200
(kPa)
pp (kPa)

G3
G3
G2
G2
100
100 G1
G1

00
Gravel-NW Geotextile
00 50
50 100
100 150
150 200 200 250
250 300 350
Normal stress, nn (kPa)
Normalstress, (kPa)
77
 Significance of variability
• Mean value of shear strengths from data base and
repeatability may be similar, giving similar factors of
safety, BUT uncertainty and hence probability of failure
is completely different
• Final design must always be based on strengths from
performance tests (i.e. using site specific materials and
boundary conditions)
• Only use data bases of interface shear strength to inform
assessment of measured values
 Obtaining interface shear
strength parameters for use in
design
Characteristic values for use in design

“A cautious estimate of the value affecting

the occurrence of the limit state.”
Eurocode 7 (1997)
Analysis to obtain characteristic
strength parameters
 Statistical approach

Xk = Xm - 0.5 σm

Where: Xk is characteristic value

Xm is mean value of test results
σm is standard deviation of test results
 How many tests should be
conducted?

One test at each normal

stress is not enough!
Shear Stress (kPa)

40

30

20

10

0
0 10 20 30 40
Selection of characteristic values

• Generation of site specific statistical data

• Lower bound of limited repeatability data
• Method based on statistical data from
published studies
 Generation of site specific
statistical values

Carry out a minimum of 4 No. tests at each

normal stress
 Are the measured strengths
mean values?
Make an assessment based on experience of
Engineer and personal judgement backed by
published data

If in doubt, use conservative lower bound

values or do more tests.
 What are the implications of
variability in measured values on
design?
Probability of failure: LE analysis
• First order, second moment reliability based
method - i.e. using mean and standard
deviation of parameters (Duncan 2000)
• Two cases considered:
 Veneer
 Waste slope
What is an acceptable Pft?
• Target probability of failure, Pft
• Qualitative • Quantitative
•Performance •Degree of damage
(Cole, 1980)
level (USACE, 1997)
• Risk (Gilbert, 2001) •Actual failure rates
(Baecher, 1987)
•LOW (cover & •Existing structures
veneer slope as infinite (Phoon et al., 1995)
slope)
•MODERATE •Function (Koerner &
(temporary base liner Koerner, 2001)
slope, cover & veneer
slope with buttress and •Cost (Gilbert, 2001)
reinforcement)

•HIGH (permanent
base liner slopes)
 What is an acceptable Pft?
• Selection of Pft for veneer cover design based on minor
repairs (Cole, 1980), moderate risk (Gilbert, 2001) and
below to above average performance level
(USACE,1997).
(Baecher, 1987)

Veneer
Pft estimated in the cover
Assume
range
Pf=1x10-2
of 10-3 to 10-2,
between mine
slopes &
foundations
 Implication of Pf approach: Veneer
• Interface shear strength from global database yield much
higher Pf although the FS for both data sets are similar
• Two methods of 0.04
reaching accept. n=20kPa FS = 1.9

Failure probability, P f
Pft=1x10-2: 0.03
Vstress=0.1 FS = 1.5

1) Reduce the 0.024 GLOBAL

DATABASE
variation 0.02
(Vstrength) via
FS = 2.2
further tests 0.01
Acceptable Pf (assumed)
1 2
2) Increase FS, 8.5E-11 REPEATABILITY
(e.g. changing to 0.00
DATA 0.052 0.230
higher interface 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
shear strength Coefficient of variation for shear strength (Vstrength)
material - increase
of cost)
 Reliability-based design chart for
target FS of 1.5 and Pf of 1x10-2
70
Note:
FS=1.5, Pft=0.01
60 V[]=5%
H=30m, h=1m, =30o, c=0, gd=18kN/m3 7%
6%
V[]=10%, V[] varies
7% 10%
Interface friction angle, min (o)

50 V[]=20%, V[] varies

8% 12%
V[]=40%, V[] varies
Apparent adhesion,  (kPa) 13.5%
9%
40
15%
V[]=10% 17%
Example 6.3 V[]=20%
30
11%
12%
24%
12.3%
15% 27%
20 30%
17% 35%
13.5%
V[]=40%
10
=0 kPa
=2 kPa =5 kPa =10 kPa
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Slope angle, bmax (o) Sia and Dixon (2008)

 Implication of Pf approach:
Waste slope
Drainage Layer

Waste Body 2.5

H Non-woven Geotextile γbulk =10kNm-3
1

Textured 1
Geomembrane
2

50m

Interfaces analysed
• Textured geomembrane vs. non-woven geotextile
• Non-woven geotextile vs. coarse soil
General database values used
Dixon et al. (2006)
 1.50%
Target Coarse Soil vs NW GT
F. of S. = 1.5?
NW GT vs Tex HDPE GM

soil geotextile characteristic

Probability of Failure (%)

1.00%
geotextile textured characteristic

0.50%
Bob’s
Low suggestions
0.3%
Medium
0.05%
0.00%
1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8
Mean Factor of Safety

Probability of failure vs. factor of safety for waste body stability,

showing the relationship between the mean and characteristic values
for factor of safety, based on combined data.
Dixon et al. (2006)
 Reliability of landfill LE analysis
• Current design practice uses target Factor of
Safety in LE analysis (e.g. 1.5) based on
„conservative‟ estimates of interface strengths
 Engineering judgement - common
 Statistical derivation – rare

• Benefits of obtaining statistical data:

 Quantitative analysis of design reliability
 Justification of costs for site specific testing
Probability vs. consequences of failure
Probability 0.3% 0.05% 0.01%
Consequences Low Medium High
Examples Veneer Capping Waste
side slope body
(After Koerner & Koerner 2001)

• Waste slippage in this study Pf >> 0.01% even with

Factor of Safety = 1.8
• Discussion required between regulators, owners and
designers to define acceptable values of Pf
 Probabilistic analysis of waste settlement
induced stresses in liner (Sia and Dixon)

Anchorage: NWGT and TGM fixed

30 m
1.0
2.5

Waste body
NWGT
TGM
5m

100 m NWGT-coarse
Subgrade
TGM-NWGT

TGM-fines
 Factors included in analyses
• Statistical variability of:
 Interface shear behaviour (strength and stiffness)
 Waste engineering properties (unit weight and
stiffness)
 Geosynthetic tensile elastic moduli

• Waste placed in 6 lifts, 5 metres each

• Ranges of slope angle and waste stiffness
• Short term construction condition only (i.e. no
waste degradation)
 Multiple FLAC analyses
• Probability distributions and ranges are assigned
to input parameters (i.e. normal, uniform etc) to
assess all possible measured values
• Monte Carlo simulations involve random
sampling of parameters from the probability
distributions to assess possible combinations of
values
• Minimum of 250 FLAC analyses of staged
construction for each design case
 Strain in
liner

Unpublished work
of Sia and Dixon
Cumm. relative displacement (m). .

1.600
Basal Side slope Interface 3:
1.400
TGM-FINES
1.200
1.000

Movement 0.800
0.600
of liner! 0.400
0.200
0.000
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Distance from left boundary (m)
 Objective of current research (Zamara,
LU/Golder Associates)
Conduct site experiment to monitor a side slope lining system
during and post waste placement with a range of instrumentation
in order to validate current industry numerical models (Zamara et
al. 2010)

Milegate Extension Landfill

 Sequence of lining slope

Pressure cells

Geomembrane
placement Extensometers

Demec
gauges

Fibre optic cables Veneer experiment

Summary and future
 Specification of testing
• Request information on the type of direct shear device to
be used (e.g. fixity of top box, method used to apply
normal stress)
• Consider the test set up in detail (e.g. geosynthetic
restraint, gap size between top and bottom boxes)
• Consider in full the desired properties of the soils
involved in the test (e.g. density) and likely behaviour
(e.g. drained/undrained)
• Select the interface and direction of shearing, the number
of tests, the normal stress range, dry or submerged and
rate of shearing
Obtaining strength parameters for design

• Strength and deformability properties control stability

and integrity
• At present index tests predominate but these are of
limited use in design
• Performance tests using site specific materials and
boundary conditions must be carried out to provide
engineering properties for use in design
• Investigations often show that a dearth of site specific
interface shear strength data contributed to failure
 General good practice
• Tests should be specified and interpreted by
experienced geotechnical engineers
• Conservative estimates (characteristic values) of shear
strength are required (i.e. do not use measured values
directly in design)
• In some cases low values are unconservative (e.g.
when used to assess tensile forces in geosynthetic
members)
• Design using combined criteria for factor of safety and
probability of failure
 The future….
• Improved test specifications (enforcement of existing!)
• Better awareness and skills to specify tests
• More performance testing
• Rigorous determination of characteristic, and hence
design, values
• Use of reliability based approaches to support design
• Engineering interfaces for specific applications……
 Acknowledgements

• Research students: Anna Sia, Gary Fowmes,

Kasia Zamara
• Russell Jones, Golder Associates (UK) Ltd
• Geofabrics, NAUE, ABG Ltd, Veolia
• Environment Agency

[email protected]