Technical Paper by D. Narejo, R.M. Koerner and R.F.

Wilson-Fahmy

PUNCTURE PROTECTION OF GEOMEMBRANES PART II: EXPERIMENTAL

ABSTRACT: Geomembrane protection materials should be considered in design if geomembranes are to properly serve the role of barrier materials. The type, thickness and properties of the required protection material are in significant need of a rational design method. This series of three papers provides a design method for the inclusion of geomembrane protection materials, geotextiles in particular. Part I focuses on theory, this paper, Part II, focuses on experiments, and Part III focuses on design examples. In this paper, truncated cone and stone puncture test results for both short and long term durations are presented. A 1.5 mm thick high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane, and various nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles with varying masses per unit area made from virgin polyester and polypropylene continuous and staple fibers were tested. Using the results of this testing program, a design methodology was developed for calculating the required mass per unit area of a puncture protection material for a given factor of safety. Conversely, the design can be used to determine the unknown factor of safety for a given type of protection material. KEYWORDS: Puncture Experimental. protection, Cushioning, Geotextile, Geomembrane,

AUTHORS: D. Narejo, Research Associate, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1S 5B6, Telephone: 1/613-520-2600, Telefax: 1/613-520-3951; R.M. Koerner, Professor of Civil Engineering, Director, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104, USA, Telephone: 1/215-895-2343, Telefax: 1/215-895-1437; and, R.F. Wilson-Fahmy, Geotechnical Engineer, Parsons Brinckerhoff, 506 Carnegie Center Drive, Princeton, New Jersey 08540, USA, Telephone: 1/609-734-6969, Telefax: 1/609-734-6900. PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101-1088, USA, Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics International is registered under ISSN 1072-6349. DATES: Original manuscript received 20 June 1996, revised version received 22 October 1996 and accepted 31 October 1996. Discussion open until 1 July 1997. REFERENCE: Narejo, D., Koerner, R.M. and Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., 1996, Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II: Experimental, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 629-653.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

629

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

INTRODUCTION

In this paper, which is Part II of a three part series, an experimental approach is adopted to evaluate the puncture resistance of high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembranes with and without nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles as protection materials. Rather than attempting to simulate the idealized geometry assumed in developing the theoretical method of the analysis in Part I (Wilson-Fahmy et al. 1996), the experimental program is conducted using conventional testing procedures. In these tests, failure pressures rather than pressures causing yield of the HDPE geomembranes are measured. The reason for this is due to the existing test procedures and data base on large scale puncture testing conducted to failure. It is feasible to develop a test method to measure the onset of yield of an HDPE geomembrane, yet, the experimental device would be intricate and the required effort would be enormous. A large scale parametric evaluation such as the one developed in this paper could not be achieved in a reasonable time frame using such an idealized test procedure. Thus, the focus of this paper is on geomembrane failure, rather than geomembrane yield. However, the significance of measuring geomembrane failure instead of geomembrane yield will be addressed further in the Part III of this series of papers (Koerner et al. 1996). The test techniques used, the geomembrane and geotextile materials used, and the corresponding test results are described in this paper. Tests evaluating geomembrane thickness, geotextile mass per unit area, angularity of the protruding object, protrusion packing density, nature of the applied pressure, and long term creep behavior are evaluated. A set of design equations based upon these test results is then developed. 2 2.1 TESTING TECHNIQUES Introduction

Various test methods have been used in the past to evaluate the puncture resistance of geomembranes and the associated geomembrane protection materials. These test methods can be grouped into three main categories: (i) index puncture tests; (ii) quasiperformance puncture tests; and (iii) performance puncture tests. For index puncture tests, a probe is pushed into a geomembrane specimen that is fixed in a circular configuration until failure occurs. Since this loading mode is not representative of field conditions, index tests are felt to be best suited for quality control and conformance purposes. Quasi-performance puncture tests, as the name implies, use idealized rather than actual field conditions. For example, instead of using site specific stones, the protrusions used have idealized shapes in the form of truncated cones or truncated pyramids (e.g. the standard test method ASTM D 5514), and the soil or waste overburden pressure is substituted by hydrostatic pressure. However, the mode of puncture is similar to field conditions in that the geomembrane overlies a protrusion and is subjected to pressure until failure occurs. The mode of stress in performance puncture tests is similar to quasi-performance tests with the exception that the puncture resistance of the geomembrane is evaluated against a site specific soil. For example, geomembrane liners used in landfills are tested using the specific overlying drainage stone of the leachate collection and removal system (Brummermann et al. 1994). Performance puncture tests are performed

630

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

using either hydrostatic or geostatic pressures. Hydrostatic pressure simulates the in situ condition of a liquid overlying the geomembrane as in the case of surface impoundments. Geostatic loading simulates overburden pressures in solid waste containment applications. Narejo (1994) gives a summary of the various geomembrane puncture tests reported in the literature. Since one of the main objectives of this study is to simulate as closely as possible the loading condition in the field, index tests had to be excluded except to provide quality control puncture data. The remaining options were to use either quasi-performance or performance puncture test methods. One of the major disadvantages of performance tests is that repeatability can be poor, because geomembrane puncture resistance is highly sensitive to the precise orientation and packing arrangement of the protruding object. For example, an angular stone can be more damaging if its sharp edge is in contact with the geomembrane in contrast with the same stone lying flat. Also, a stone arrangement in which some stones are raised over the neighboring stones can be more critical when compared to an arrangement with the tips of the stones being more or less at the same height. Another disadvantage of performance tests is that the results cannot be readily compared to test results obtained using different types of stones. For these reasons, it was decided to use the truncated cone quasi-performance test for this study. The truncated cone test was chosen over the truncated pyramid test because a reasonable data base already exists (Hullings 1990); however, variations of the truncated cone test and a limited number of performance tests were also performed. Geostatic loading was also considered in order to investigate the possibility of arching within the soil media that would result in a reduction of the pressure above the protrusion. In this case, sand was used as the loading medium above the geomembrane. 2.2 Short Term Hydrostatic Tests Using Truncated Cones

The hydrostatic puncture tests were performed according to the standard test method, ASTM D 5514. The pressure vessel and protrusions in this test consist of three truncated cones with dimensions given in Figure 1b. The cones are mounted on a rigid steel platform in a triangular pattern at 250 mm centers, and the radius of curvature of the cone tip is approximately 0.25 mm. The whole assembly is installed in the bottom section of a pressure vessel as illustrated in Figure 1a, and sand is placed on the base plate leaving the tips of the cones exposed and protruding above the sand surface. The heights of the exposed tips above the sand surface can be varied to investigate the effect of the protrusion height on puncture resistance. The geomembrane and its protection material, if any, are laid flat on the cone tips and the flange of the bottom portion of the pressure vessel. The top section of the pressure vessel is then secured in place thereby containing the outer circumference of the test specimen. The geomembrane is loaded using hydrostatic pressure applied through a water inlet in the top section of the pressure vessel at a rate of 7 kPa per minute. Failure of the geomembrane is detected via two electrically conducting probes in an open circuit, embedded in the cones, and terminating at the cone tips. When geomembrane puncture occurs, the water penetrating the geomembrane closes the circuit thereby activating a light bulb. A clock is also turned off to measure the time to geomembrane failure. The failure time is particularly important for long term tests in which a constant pressure is sustained until failure occurs.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

631

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

(a)

(b)

28 mm

Rounded to 0.25 mm radius

Figure 1. Details of the hydrostatic pressure truncated cone puncture test: (a) pressure vessel for the truncated cone and pyramid puncture tests; (b) protrusions for the truncated cone puncture test.

Four cone heights of 12, 25, 38 and 50 mm were used. This choice was based on the fact that the critical cone height for an unprotected 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane is approximately 12 mm (Hullings and Koerner 1991). The critical cone height is defined as the maximum cone height at which short term failure does not occur. 2.3 Long Term Hydrostatic Tests Using Truncated Cones

The same test set-up described in Section 2.2 was used for the long term hydrostatic tests. In the tests, the geomembrane and its protection geotextile, if any, were subjected

632

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

to a sustained pressure lower than the failure pressure measured in short term tests. The pressure ranged between 25 to 85% of the short term failure pressure and was maintained until failure occurred, or for 10,000 hours, whichever was reached first. As with the short term tests, the targeted load level was obtained by applying the hydrostatic pressure at a rate of 7 kPa per minute. 2.4 Short Term Hydrostatic Tests Using Isolated Stones

These tests are performed using the same method as the hydrostatic truncated cone puncture test with the exception that the cones are substituted by isolated stones. The purpose of this test is to correlate the truncated cone test results to test results obtained using actual stones. Rounded, subrounded and angular stone shapes were used. The bottom portion of each stone was held inside a cup using epoxy; by doing so, the exposed height and movement of the stone during a test could be easily controlled. 2.5 Short Term Hydrostatic Tests Using Packed Stones

The geomembrane in these tests was laid flat above a bed of stones. Standardized sets of stones corresponding to American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) No. 8, 57 and 3 stones (9 to 13, 25 to 38, and 50 to 64 mm, respectively) were used to simulate as closely as possible the field conditions of a continuous layer of stones. These stone sizes are often used in drainage layers above geomembranes. The loading sequence was the same as that used for the truncated cones. 2.6 Geostatic Tests Using a Truncated Cone

A limited number of geostatic tests was also conducted. Geostatic means that soil was the pressurizing medium rather than water (water was used in all of the other tests in this study). One cone was used instead of three and the diameter of the vessel was 300 mm. A smaller device than that utilized in the hydrostatic test was used because loading was performed in a compression machine that could not accommodate a size greater than 300 mm. However, the radius of the initial unsupported area of the geomembrane around the cone is approximately the same in the two devices. A 150 mm thick layer of sand was placed above the flat geomembrane, and loading was applied via a rigid circular plate resting on the sand surface. A schematic of the test setup is given in Figure 2. A number of tests were conducted using a 150 mm diameter pressure cell embedded at the same location as the geomembrane to evaluate the frictional stresses developing at the geomembrane-soil boundary. It was found that approximately 65% of the applied pressure is transmitted to the level of the geomembrane. This value is used in evaluating the puncture resistance. It is recognized that the measurements obtained using this test device are not as accurate as those obtained in the hydrostatic test. This, in addition to the fact that the two set-ups are somewhat different, is considered in the interpretation of the results.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

633

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Figure 2. Test apparatus for geostatic truncated cone puncture tests.

MATERIALS USED

The geomembrane and associated protection materials used in the experimental investigation are described in this section. 3.1 Geomembrane

A 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane was used in all of the puncture tests performed with a protection material, and in some of the puncture tests without a protection material. Additional puncture tests using 1.0 and 2.0 mm thick HDPE geomembranes without protection were also performed. Different geomembrane thicknesses were tested to assess the possibility of using thicker geomembranes instead of protection materials. Selected physical and mechanical properties of the HDPE geomembranes tested are given in Table 1. Note that the yield stress is somewhat lower than the published values in the manufacturers literature, the reason being that testing was performed according to the wide width test, ASTM D 4885, that specifies a 100 mm long by 200 mm wide specimen. Index tension tests or axi-symmetric tension tests result in higher values compared to wide width tests as shown by data presented in the paper by Koerner (1994). Although the wide width test is possibly not the most convenient test, the results are necessary for comparison with the tensile properties of the protection geotextiles.

634

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Table 1. Selected physical and mechanical properties of the HDPE geomembranes used in this study.
Geomembrane 1 2 3 Thickness (mm) 2.0 1.5 1.0 Yield load (kN/m) 30 23 14 Yield strain (%) 18 18 18 Puncture load (kN) 0.63 0.44 0.28

3.2

Nonwoven Needle-Punched Geotextile

The protection materials consisted of nonwoven needle-punched polyester and polypropylene geotextiles with masses per unit area ranging between 130 and 1350 g/m2. The polyester geotextiles were manufactured from continuous fibers, whereas the polypropylene geotextiles were made from staple fibers. Selected properties of these geotextiles are given in Table 2. All of the geotextiles used were made from virgin polymeric materials. 4 TESTING PROGRAM

Table 3 presents the values of the various parameters used in the puncture tests. The following steps describe the procedure and basic concepts of the testing program:

S Determine the short term failure pressure of the geomembranes with and without

protection using hydrostatic truncated cone test data. S Determine the short term failure pressure of the geomembranes without protection using hydrostatic puncture tests on isolated stones. Using the test results, establish a correlation between the geomembrane failure pressure for truncated cones and angular, subrounded and rounded stones.
Table 2. Selected physical and mechanical properties of the virgin polymer geotextile protection materials.
Protection material NW-NP-PET-1 NW-NP-PET-2 NW-NP-PET-3 NW-NP-PET-4 NW-NP-PP-1 NW-NP-PP-2 NW-NP-PP-3 Mass/unit area (g/m2) 130 270 550 1080 300 680 1350 Thickness (mm) 1.3 2.5 4.8 9.6 3.0 5.6 11.0 Strength (kN/m) 10 19 41 75 28 51 96 Modulus (kN/m) 37 61 69 142 42 78 137 Strain (%) 60 60 60 70 40 40 40 Tapered pin puncture load (kN) 0.2 0.4 0.8 1.5 0.5 1.1 2.3

Notes: Test methods used: mass/unit area, ASTM D 5261; thickness, ASTM D 5199; strength, modulus and strain, ASTM D 4595; tapered pin puncture, FTMS 101C-M2065. NW = nonwoven; NP = needle-punched; PET = polyester; PP = polypropylene; FTMS = Federal Test Method Standard.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

635

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Table 3. Puncture test program for geomembranes and protection materials.

Test method Short term Protrusion 3 truncated cones (height: 12 - 50 mm) 1.0 1.5 2.0 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 3 stones (height: 12 - 50 mm) - angular - subrounded - rounded Bed of stones - AASHTO #8 - AASHTO #57 - AASHTO #3 Short term geostatic tests Long term hydrostatic truncated cone tests 1 truncated cone (height: 12 - 50 mm) 3 truncated cones (height: 12 - 38 mm) 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 PE PE PE 270 550 1080 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 PE PE PE PE PP PP PP 130 270 550 1080 300 680 1080 Geomembrane thickness (mm) Geotextile polymer type Geotextile mass/unit area (g/m2)

Notes: PE = polyethylene; PP = polypropylene; AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. AASHTO #8, #57 and #57 stone sizes = 9 - 13, 25 - 38 and 50 - 64 mm, respectively.

S Determine the failure pressure of geomembranes without protection using hydrostatic puncture tests on a layer of stones. Assuming the protrusion height is equal to half the maximum size of the stones (see the conclusions in Section 6, Part I, WilsonFahmy et al. 1996), establish a correlation between the geomembrane failure pressure for isolated stones and packed stones. S Determine the failure pressure of geomembranes without protection using the geostatic truncated cone test. Establish a correlation between the geomembrane failure pressure under hydrostatic and geostatic loading conditions.

636

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

S Determine the long term puncture strength of geomembranes with and without

protection using long term hydrostatic truncated cone tests. Establish a correlation between the short term and long term puncture strength.

The established correlations are assumed to be independent of each other. Thus, the geomembrane puncture resistance is determined by modifying the failure pressure for truncated cone tests using one or more of the established correlations depending on the actual field conditions. The necessary design equations result directly from the above described process. 5 TEST RESULTS

This section presents the results of the various tests performed as per the testing program shown in Table 3. 5.1 Short Term Failure Pressure for Truncated Cones

5.1.1 Geomembrane Without Protection Table 4 summarizes the test results for different thicknesses of geomembrane without protection material. It can be seen that increasing the geomembrane thickness results in an increase in failure pressure at all cone heights; however, the magnitudes of the failure pressure are not large. For example, a failure pressure of 100 kPa corresponds to 8 m of municipal solid waste having a unit weight of 12 kN/m3. Thus, from a practical point of view, and considering the fact that pressure at yield can be much lower than the above values, the use of a protection material for HDPE geomembranes for cone heights greater than 12 mm appears to be necessary.
Table 4. Failure pressures from truncated cone puncture tests for different HDPE geomembrane thicknesses.
Geomembrane thickness (mm) 1.0 1.5 2.0 Failure pressure (kPa) Cone height (mm) 50 21 34 48 38 28 55 62 25 28 69 100 12 110 140 310

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

637

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

5.1.2 Geomembrane With Protection Table 5 and Figure 3 give the failure pressures for 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembranes with various nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles having different masses per unit area. The maximum pressure that can be applied in the device is 1100 kPa, and thus, no pressures higher than 1100 kPa could be reported. It is clear from this data that the failure pressure is sensitive to the mass per unit area of the protection geotextile. For example, for a cone height of 25 mm, increasing the mass per unit area from 130 g/m2 (geotextile NW-NP-PET-1 in Table 5) to 1080 g/m2 (geotextile NW-NP-PET-4 in Table 5) resulted in a six-fold increase in the failure pressure. In fact, the results in Figure 3 show that for each cone height (CH), the relationship between mass per unit area and failure pressure can be reasonably approximated by a straight line. The failure pressure is also an important function of the cone height. For example, reducing the height from 50 to 25 mm resulted in an increase in failure pressure from 83 to 450 kPa for a geotextile with a mass per unit area of 550 g/m2 (geotextile NW-NP-PET-3 in Table 5). The same trend is also observed for all of the other geotextiles irrespective of their structure, i.e. geotextiles that are made of polyester continuous filament or polypropylene staple fiber geotextiles. 5.2 Correlation With Field Conditions

As mentioned previously, correlations between the short term hydrostatic truncated cone test and field conditions are required in order to determine the in situ puncture resistance of the geomembrane with and without protection. These correlations are presented in this section based on the test data.
Table 5. Failure pressures from hydrostatic pressure truncated cone puncture tests for a 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane with various types of virgin geotextile protection materials.
Failure pressure (kPa) Test condition 50 GM alone (no protection) NW-NP-PET-1 NW-NP-PET-2 NW-NP-PET-3 NW-NP-PET-4 NW-NP-PP-1 NW-NP-PP-2 NW-NP-PP-3 34 69 69 83 150 76 120 290 38 55 83 83 103 365 210 280 470 Cone height (mm) 25 69 100 320 450 610 320 500 >1100 12 140 410 830 >1100 >1100 990 >1100 >1100

Notes: NW = nonwoven; NP = needle-punched; PET = polyester; PP = polypropylene; GM = geomembrane.

638

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Figure 3. Linear variation of failure pressure with mass per unit area for nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles at different cone heights (polyester continuous filament and polypropylene staple fiber geotextiles).
Note: CH = cone height.

5.2.1 Isolated Stones Versus Truncated Cones Figure 4 shows the relationship between the exposed height of protrusions (stones) and the geomembrane failure pressure for angular, subrounded and rounded stone shapes. The truncated cone test results are also plotted in Figure 4 for comparison. The trend of results is the same for all stone shapes in that the failure pressure decreases as the exposed height of the stone increases. The angular stone results closely follow the truncated cone results, and produce lower geomembrane failure pressures than the subrounded and rounded stone results. In general, it can be assumed that the geomembrane failure pressures for subrounded stones are two times greater than those for angular stones, and the geomembrane failure pressures for rounded stones are four times greater than those for angular stones. 5.2.2 Packed Stones Versus Isolated Stones Unlike the tests performed using isolated stones, failure could not be achieved for the packed stone tests even under the maximum pressure capacity of the test device (1100 kPa). Thus, it was decided to determine the minimum pressure causing yield of the geomembrane. This was achieved by stopping the test at different increments of applied pressure, opening the pressure vessel, and visually examining the geomembrane for any

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

639

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Figure 4. Failure pressure versus exposed height of protrusion.

signs of yield. Obviously, the pressure at yield can only be determined in an approximate manner using this procedure. Nevertheless, the results indicate that the pressure at yield for packed stones is sensitive to the stone size. Table 6 shows that the pressure at yield increases as the stone size decreases. To allow for comparisons with the behavior of a geomembrane over isolated protrusions, it is assumed that the effective protrusion height for packed stones is equal to half the maximum stone size, which is in agreement with the conclusions in Section 6 of Part I of this series of papers (Wilson-Fahmy et al. 1996). It will also be assumed that the stone shape is angular; thus, if the stone acts as an isolated protrusion, it will give the same failure pressure as a truncated cone. This assumption enables comparisons to be made with the results of isolated protrusions. For example, a 12 mm effective protrusion height results in a failure pressure of 140 kPa (Table 4) if it is an isolated protrusion, and in excess of 1100 kPa if it is a packed stone arrangement (Table 6). Thus, it can be concluded that failure pressures for packed stones are much higher than for isolated stones.
Table 6. Pressure at yield for packed stones.
AASHTO stone number 3 57 8 Maximum size (mm) 50 - 64 25 - 38 9 - 13 1/2 maximum size (mm) 25 - 32 13 - 19 5 -7 d50 (mm) 38 12 10 Pressure at yield (kPa) 70 170 690 Failure pressure (kPa) >1100 >1100 >1100

Notes: AASHTO = American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials; d50 = soil particle size for which 50% of the sample is smaller.

640

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

5.2.3 Hydrostatic Loading Versus Geostatic Loading Table 7 gives the measured geostatic failure pressures for the geomembrane without and with protection using the device shown in Figure 2. Failure pressures above 700 kPa could not be reported as they exceeded the device capacity. Comparing the data in Table 7 with those of Table 5 that were measured under hydrostatic conditions, it can be concluded that the failure pressures resulting from geostatic stresses are approximately six times higher than those caused by hydrostatic pressures. This large difference is partially attributed to soil arching which tends to alleviate the stresses transferred to the deforming geomembrane and its protection material. The impact of this difference between hydrostatic and geostatic loading on design is discussed later. 5.2.4 Short Term Versus Long Term Loading The results for the long term (creep) tests are given in Table 8 and Figure 5. While the data is sparse and is only for the test-specific temperature of 20C 2C, the trend of the test results is reasonably well defined. For the same percentage of the failure pressure, low cone heights results in longer failure times for geomembranes with and without protection. For example, at 75% of the failure pressure, increasing the cone height from 12 to 38 mm for a geomembrane without protection resulted in a decrease in failure time from 100 to 10 hours. The effect of increasing the mass per unit area of the protection geotextile is shown to increase all failure times for the same cone height, and the percentage of failure pressure. For example, for a cone height of 25 mm, the failure time increased from 180 hours to more than 10,000 hours at 50% of the failure pressure due to an increase of the geotextile mass per unit area from 270 to 1100 g/m2. From Figures 5b, 5c and 5d it appears that the minimum required mass per unit area of geotextiles for cone heights of 12, 25 and 38 mm are 270, 550 and 1100 g/m2, respectively. These values are used as default values in Part III of this series of papers (Koerner et al. 1996) where example problems and design tables are presented.
Table 7. Failure pressures from geostatic puncture tests for a 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane with various nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles.
Failure pressure (kPa) Test condition 50 GM alone (no protection) NW-NP-PET-2 NW-NP-PET-3 NW-NP-PET-4 240 380 580 >700 38 310 510 >700 >700 Cone height (mm) 25 450 >700 >700 >700 12 700 >700 >700 >700

Notes: NW = nonwoven; NP = needle-punched; PET = polyester; GM = geomembrane.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

641

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

(a) Applied pressure / Failure pressure (%) (b) Applied pressure / Failure pressure (%)
Figure 5. Percent ratio of applied pressure to failure pressure versus failure time for geomembranes with and without protection material: (a) without protection material; (b) with a 270 g/m2 nonwoven needle-punched polyester geotextile. Note: CH = cone height. 642

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

(c) Applied pressure / Failure pressure (%) (d) Applied pressure / Failure pressure (%)
Figure 5 (continued). Percent ratio of applied pressure to failure pressure versus failure time for geomembranes with and without protection material: (c) with a 550 g/m2 nonwoven needle-punched polyester geotextile; (d) with a 1100 g/m2 nonwoven needle-punched polyester geotextile. Note: CH = cone height.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

643

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Table 8. Long term (creep) failure times for a 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane with various nonwoven needle-punched polyester protection geotextiles.
Cone height (mm) 12 Protection geotextile None Failure pressure[ (kPa) 140 Applied pressure (% of failure pressure) 75 50 25 550 25 g/m2 1750* 3400* 69 75 40 75 50 25 270 g/m2 320 75 50 25 550 g/m2 450 85 70 60 1080 g/m2 38 None 610 55 75 75 50 25 270 g/m2 83 75 50 25 550 g/m2 103 365 75 50 1080 g/m2 75 1080 g/m2 None Applied pressure (kPa) 100 70 35 1300 1300 52 34 17 240 160 80 380 310 270 460 41 28 14 62 41 21 77 52 270 Failure time (hours) 130 170 260 10,000** 10,000** 24 42 68 140 110 310 240 390 1000** 10,000** 0.5 2.5 40 3 12 200 192 1000** 10,000**

Notes: *Calculated values using Equation 3. **Geomembrane showed signs of yield. [ From short term hydrostatic pressure truncated cone puncture tests.

6 6.1

DESIGN FORMULATION Introduction

A design formulation is presented in this section based on the experimental puncture data reported in the previous sections. The resulting equations predict the allowable failure pressure for HDPE geomembranes both with and without geotextile protection.

644

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

As previously explained, the logic behind the formulation is to first determine the failure pressure based on the short term hydrostatic truncated cone test data. A series of modification factors are then applied to correlate the truncated cone data to actual field conditions. The modification factors consider the stone shape, arrangement and soil arching. All of these modification factors have a magnitude of 1.0 or less since the experiments were conducted on a worst-case basis. Partial factors of safety are then incorporated into the design equations to account for creep and chemical/biological degradation. These partial factors of safety are equal to 1.0 or greater since longer periods of time are typically required for these factors to have an effect. Finally, a global factor of safety is applied to account for uncertainties in the formulation. The above described empirical formulation is presented in a step-by-step manner in order to emphasize the various factors involved. 6.2 Basic Design Equation

The formulation for predicting geomembrane failure pressure, p, is based on Figure 3 where it is seen that for each cone height, the failure pressure varies linearly with respect to the mass per unit area of the geotextile. Note that this failure pressure from the experiments is assumed to be the maximum allowable design pressure with an implied global factor of safety of 1.0. Thus, the maximum allowable pressure can be expressed as follows: p allow = d M A (1)

where: pallow = maximum allowable pressure (with an implied factor of safety of 1.0); MA = mass per unit area of the protection geotextile (g/m2); and d = constant. From Figure 3, it is found that the parameter d can be related to the cone height, H, according to the following equation: d = 450 H2 (2)

where H is in millimeters. Combining Equations 1 and 2, the failure pressure can be determined in terms of the cone height and mass per unit area of the protection geotextile as follows (a minimum pressure of 50 kPa is imposed which conservatively corresponds to the failure pressure of the 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane without any protection material): p allow = 450 MA 50 kPa H2 (3)

The accuracy of the above equation is depicted in Figure 6 which shows the relationship between the measured failure pressure and the failure pressure predicted using Equation 3. The data in Figure 6 are for polyester geotextiles made from continuous filaments, and polypropylene geotextiles made of staple fibers. Hence, Equation 3 applies to essentially all of the polymer and fiber types used in the nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

645

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Figure 6. Measured versus empirically predicted failure pressures using Equation 3 for all nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles evaluated with a 1.5 mm thick HDPE geomembrane. Note: R = correlation coefficient.

6.3

Modification Factors

A series of modification factors is now sequentially applied to Equation 3 in order to arrive at a pressure representing field conditions. The modified pressure will be referred to as piallow . 6.3.1 Modification Factor for the Protrusion Shape It was previously shown that the failure pressure depends on the protrusion shape. Rounded stones gave the highest failure pressure followed by subrounded stones. The lowest failure pressure is associated with angular stones and is approximately equal to the failure pressure of truncated cones. In order to account for the effect of stone shape, a modification factor is introduced into Equation 3 as follows: p allow = pallow 1 MF
S

(4)

where MFS is the modification factor for the protrusion shape. Hereafter, piallow refers to the empirically modified value of pallow as is illustrated in Figure 6. Based on the analysis of the data presented in Section 5.2.1, the modification factors for different stone shapes are presented in Table 9.

646

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Table 9. Modification factor for protrusion shape.

Stone shape Angular Subrounded Rounded Modification factor, MFS 1.00 0.50 0.25

6.3.2 Modification Factor for Packing Density It is shown in Section 5.2.2 that the allowable pressure for packed stones is much higher than for isolated stones. Unfortunately, within the capacity of the experimental device, no failure could be achieved with the packed stones, and hence, no direct correlation with isolated stones could be made. However, using the theoretical analysis presented in Part I of this series of papers (Wilson-Fahmy et al. 1996), the pressure at yield for packed stones (Ro /H = 2) could be compared with the pressure at yield for isolated stones (Ro /H = 4) where Ro is the horizontal distance from a undeformed geomembrane point of tangency with the protrusion tip to the undeformed geomembrane point of tangency with the soil subgrade. The analysis was performed for geomembranes with and without protection. Based on the results, a modification factor of 0.5 is suggested which provides a conservative estimate of the effect of packing density. Thus, Equation 4 can be rewritten after introducing a modification factor for packing density as follows: p allow = pallow 1 MF MF
S PD

(5)

where MFPD is the modification factor for packing density. The modification values presented in Table 10 can be used for isolated protrusions and packed stone arrangements. 6.3.3 Modification Factor for Soil Arching Equation 5 can be further modified as follows to include the effect of soil arching: p allow = pallow 1 MF MF
S PD

MF A

(6)

where MFA is the modification factor for soil arching.

Table 10. Modification factors for packing density.
Protrusion arrangement Isolated protrusions Packed stones Modification factor, MFPD 1.00 0.50

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

647

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

It is shown in Section 5.2.3 that geostatic loading can lead to an increase in failure pressure by a factor of six in comparison with hydrostatic loading. This corresponds to a modification factor of 0.17. It may be noted, however, that the effect of soil arching on the pressure at yield may not be as great as the effect on the failure pressure. The deformations of the geomembrane up to yield may not be large enough to mobilize the soil arching effect; therefore, caution must be exercised when using the data in Table 7 for design. It is recommended that the values in Table 11 be used when soil arching is anticipated. 6.4 Partial Factors of Safety

After introducing the various modification factors (all of which are 1.0 or less), several partial factors of safety should be applied in order to determine the allowable pressure on the geomembrane. The partial factors of safety are equal to 1.0 or greater. Two factors are considered below, a partial factor of safety for long term creep and a partial factor of safety to account for long term chemical/biological degradation of the materials involved. 6.4.1 Partial Factor of Safety for Creep A partial factor of safety for creep is incorporated into Equation 6, and the allowable pressure is now calculated as follows: p allow = pallow 1 MF MF
S

PD

MF A

FS1
CR

(7)

where FSCR is the partial factor of safety for creep. Based on the creep data presented in Table 8, the recommended partial factors of safety for creep are given in Table 12.
Table 11. Modification factors for soil arching.
Soil arching effect None Moderate Maximum Modification factor, MFA 1.00 0.75 0.50

Table 12. Partial factors of safety for creep.

Geotextile mass per u pe unit ta area ea (g/m2) No geotextile 270 550 1100 >1100 Partial factors of safety for creep Protrusion height (mm) 25 12 N/R N/R N/R 1.5 1.2 ~1.1 >1.5 1.3 1.1 ~1.0

38 N/R N/R N/R 1.3 ~1.2

6 >>1.5 1.5 1.2 1.0 1.0

Note: N/R = not recommended.

648

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

It may be noted that the above partial factors of safety values for creep are relatively low in comparison with the factors of safety found in the literature for creep of geotextiles in tension. This may be explained by the fact that, in the puncture mode, the geomembrane and its protection material will conform more to the subgrade as they creep and hence the unsupported length will decrease with time. It was shown in Part I of this series of papers (Wilson-Fahmy et al. 1996) that for the same applied pressure the maximum stress mobilized at the protrusion tip will decrease as the unsupported length decreases. Thus, a decrease in stress in the geomembrane and its protection material is expected with time. Accordingly, a lower factor of safety for creep is required for the puncture mode in comparison to the stress mode in which the material is subjected to a constant tensile stress. 6.4.2 Partial Factor of Safety for Chemical/Biological Degradation The partial factor of safety against chemical/biological degradation, FSCBD , is included in Equation 7 as follows: p allow = pallow 1 MF MF
S

PD

MF A

FS

CR

1 FS CBD

(8)

Although not assessed in this study, the value of FSCBD is felt to range between 1.0 and 2.0 with an average value of 1.5; see Koerner (1994) for discussion and details. 6.5 Global Factor of Safety

After determining an allowable pressure that is suitably adjusted for modification factors and partial factors of safety (Equation 8), a global factor of safety is determined by dividing the allowable pressure by the required pressure as follows: p FS = pallow reqd (9)

where: preqd = maximum stress required on the geomembrane; and FS = desired global factor of safety for uncertainties related to site specific conditions. It is felt that the global factor of safety should never be less than 3.0. Higher values may be used depending on site specific conditions. For example, a high factor of safety should be used in situations where large isolated stones are frequently encountered on the subgrade. Also, a tightly installed geomembrane may also require a larger global factor of safety compared to a geomembrane installed with slack. Furthermore, no modification has been included for in situ temperatures different from the test procedure temperature, i.e. 20C. More definitive recommendations for the global factor of safety are made in Part III of this series of papers (Koerner et al. 1996).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

649

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

SUMMARY OF EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

An experimental investigation is presented that involves testing unprotected geomembranes and geomembranes protected with nonwoven needle-punched geotextiles under various idealized and field simulated conditions. The test results are used to develop an empirical design method for the protection of HDPE geomembranes. The following points summarize the basic features of the experimental data and the empirical design method:

S The puncture resistance of a geomembrane increases as the mass per unit area of the S

S S

protection geotextile increases. The relationship is linear for all protrusion heights. The puncture resistance of geomembranes using angular stones (e.g. quarried stone) is assumed equal to the puncture resistance of geomembranes using the truncated cones in the experimental investigation. Subrounded stones result in two times the puncture resistance of geomembranes using angular stones, while rounded stones result in four times the puncture resistance of geomembranes using angular stones. An increase in the protrusion height causes a decrease in the puncture resistance of the geomembranes. For any mass per unit area protection geotextile, the puncture resistance of the geomembrane is inversely proportional to the square of the protrusion height. The puncture resistance of a geomembrane over a bed of stones is greater than that over isolated stones for the same effective protrusion height. It may be conservatively assumed that the puncture resistance of a geomembrane in the former case is two times that of the latter case. The puncture resistance of a geomembrane under geostatic loading can be up to six times greater than that under hydrostatic loading, the reason being attributed to the effect of soil arching. However, the effect of soil arching at yield may not be as great as the effect of soil arching on the failure pressure. The deformation of the geomembrane up to yield may not be large enough to mobilize the soil arching effect. Therefore, it is advisable in design to limit the puncture resistance under geostatic loading to a maximum of two times that under hydrostatic loading. Puncture resistance of a geomembrane decreases with time, while the effect of time is more pronounced with a decrease in the mass per unit area of the protection geotextile and an increase in the protrusion height. The factor of safety values for creep are relatively low in comparison to the factors of safety found in the literature for creep of geotextiles in tension. This can be explained by the fact that in puncture mode the geomembrane and its protection material conform more to the subgrade as they creep and hence the unsupported length decreases with time. Since, for the same applied pressure, the maximum stresses mobilized at the protrusion tip decrease with the decrease of the unsupported length of the geomembrane, a decrease in stress is expected with time. Thus, lower factors of safety for creep are required in the puncture mode compared to the same geotextiles subjected to a constant tensile stress. Although not investigated in this study, the effect of chemical and biological degradation should be included when determining the geomembrane puncture resistance. Since puncture is basically a result of tension failure at the protrusion tip, it would

650

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

be logical to assume that chemical and biological degradation affect the puncture strength as they do the tensile strength of geomembranes. Partial factor of safety values for chemical and biological degradation cited in the literature are used in this study. S All of the above factors are considered in the empirical formulation presented in Section 6 with the purpose of determining an allowable pressure for the geomembrane and its protection material. Additionally, a global factor of safety is introduced that is consistent with standard design practice to account for any uncertainties. S The effect of temperatures that are significantly higher or lower than 20C corresponding to the test procedure have not been included. S The design method is illustrated in Part III of this series of papers (Koerner et al. 1996) using example problems and design charts. REFERENCES ASTM D 4595, Standard Test Method for Tensile Properties of Geotextiles by the Wide-Width Strip Method, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM D 4885, Standard Test Method for Determining Performance Strength of Geomembranes by the Wide Strip Tensile Method, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM D 5199, Test Method for Measuring Nominal Thickness of Geotextiles and Geomembranes, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM D 5261, Test Method for Measuring Mass Per Unit Area of Geotextiles, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA. ASTM D 5514, Standard Test Method for Large Scale Hydrostatic Puncture Testing of Geosynthetics, American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA. Brummermann, K., Blmel, W. and Stoewahse, C., 1994, Protection Layers for Geomembranes: Effectiveness and Testing Procedures, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and Related Products, Vol. 3, Singapore, September 1994, pp. 1003-1006. Daniel, F. and Daniel, L., 1984, The Behavior of Geomembranes in Relation to Soil, Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomembranes, IFAI, Vol. 1, Denver, Colorado, USA, pp. 175-180. Frobel, R., Youngblood, W. and Vandervoort, J., 1983, The Composite Advantage in the Mechanical Protection of Polyethylene Geomembranes - A Laboratory Study, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 87, IFAI, Vol. 2, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 1987, pp. 565 -576. FTMS 101C Method 2065, Puncture Resistance and Elongation Test (1/8-inch Probe Method), Federal Test Method Standard, U.S. General Services Administration, Washington, DC, USA.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

651

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

Hullings, D.E., 1990, Puncture Behavior and Protection of Geomembranes Using Large Scale Hydrostatic Facility, Masters Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 71 p. Hullings, D.E. and Koerner, R.M., 1991, Puncture Resistance of Geomembranes Using a Truncated Cone Test, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 91, IFAI, Vol. 1, Atlanta, Georgia, USA, February 1991, pp. 273-285. Koerner, R.M., 1994, Designing with Geosynthetics, Third Edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 783 p. Koerner, R.M., Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. and Narejo, D., 1996, Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part III: Examples, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 655-675. Murphy, V.P. and Koerner, R.M., 1988, CBR Strength (Puncture) of Geosynthetics, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 11, No. 3, pp. 164-172. Narejo, D.B, 1994, Puncture Behavior of HDPE Geomembranes, Ph.D. Thesis, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA, 137 p. Narejo, D.B., Wilson-Fahmy, R.F. and Koerner, R.M., 1993, Geomembrane Puncture Evaluation and Use of Geotextile Protection Layers, Progress in Geotechnical Engineering Practice, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, proceedings of a conference held in Hershey, Pennsylvania, USA, April 1993, pp. 1-16. Wilson-Fahmy, R.F., Narejo, D. and Koerner, R.M., 1996, Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part I: Theory, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3, No. 5, pp. 605-628. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This paper and Parts I and III of this series were made possible by co-funding by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency under Cooperative Agreement No. CR-815692 and the member organizations of the Geosynthetic Research Institute. Their sponsorship and interactions are sincerely appreciated. NOTATIONS Basic SI units are given in parentheses. CH d d50 FS FSCR FSCBD H = = = = = = = cone height (m) constant (Pa/kg/m2) soil particle size for which 50% of the sample is smaller (m) global factor of safety (dimensionless) partial factor of safety for long term creep (dimensionless) partial factor of safety for chemical/biological degradation (dimensionless) protrusion height (m)

652

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

NAREJO, KOERNER AND WILSON-FAHMY D Puncture Protection of Geomembranes Part II

MA MFA MFPD MFS p pallow piallow preqd Ro

= = = = = = = = =

geotextile mass per unit area (kg/m2) modification factor for soil arching (dimensionless) modification factor for packing density (dimensionless) modification factor for protrusion shape (dimensionless) geomembrane failure pressure (Pa) maximum allowable pressure on the geomembrane with an implied factor of safety of 1.0 (Pa) allowable pressure on the geomembrane for site specific conditions (Pa) maximum pressure required on the geomembrane (Pa) horizontal distance from the undeformed geomembrane point of tangency with the protrusion tip to the undeformed geomembrane point of tangency with the soil subgrade (m)

ABBREVIATIONS AASHTO: ASTM: FTMS: GM: HDPE: NP: NW: PE: PET: PP: American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials American Society for Testing and Materials Federal Test Method Standard geomembrane high density polyethylene needle-punched nonwoven polyethylene polyester polypropylene

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 5

653