Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No.

Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of

GCLs below poured concrete
R. K. Rowe1 and M. S. Hosney2
1
Professor, Canada Research Chair in Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, and Killam
Fellow, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Queen’s University, Ellis Hall, Kingston, ON, Canada
K7L 3N9, Telephone: +1 613 533 3113, Telefax: +1 613 533 2128, E-mail: kerry.rowe@queensu.ca
2
Postdoctoral Fellow, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s-RMC, Queen’s University, Kingston, ON,
Canada, K7L 3N9, Telephone: +1 613 583 8054, Telefax: +1 613 533 2128,
E-mail: Mohamed.hosney@ce.queensu.ca

Received 28 August 2013, revised 7 July 2014, accepted 11 July 2014

ABSTRACT: The performance of four geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) used as a hydraulic barrier
below concrete-lined sewage treatment lagoons was examined based on a series of laboratory tests
aimed at measuring: (i) the lateral flow of synthetic wastewater through the interface between each
GCL product and a 0.1 m thick cast-in-place concrete above the GCL over a 14-month period and,
from this data, calculating the concrete/GCL interface transmissivity (Ł); and (ii) the hydraulic
conductivity (k) of the GCLs below poured concrete when exposed to (iia) synthetic wastewater
under isothermal conditions, or (iib) a series of wet–dry and/or cool–heat cycles for up to 12
months. The four GCLs have either sodium or polymer-enhanced sodium bentonite, and either
granular or powdered bentonite. When the wastewater head above the GCL was 1.0 m (stress on
concrete,  ¼ 10 kPa), Ł for the GCL with granular sodium bentonite was 4 3 1011 m2/s. For the
same GCL, when the head increased to 2.5 m ( ¼ 25 kPa), the value of Ł was reduced by about
one order of magnitude to 2 3 1012 m2/s. For the GCL which has polymer-enhanced granular
bentonite, the value of Ł was similar to (and possibly lower than) that for the GCL with untreated
granular bentonite. For the GCL with powdered bentonite and cover geotextile impregnated with
1280 g/m2 of bentonite, the values of Ł were 2 3 1012 and 4 3 1013 m2/s at 1.0 and 2.5 m head,
respectively. With a reduction in the amount of the impregnated powdered bentonite in the cover
geotextile to 840 g/m2, Ł was 1 to 9 3 1012 m2/s. The lowest k (3.2 3 1011 m/s) for a GCL
below concrete and exposed to wastewater under isothermal conditions was measured for the GCL
with polymer-enhanced granular bentonite, whereas the highest value of k (1.9 3 1010 m/s) was for
the GCL with standard granular bentonite. Under 0.5 m head and 3 kPa stress, the k of the GCL
below concrete and exposed to wet–dry cycles was 1.2–2.6 times the k of the GCL exposed to
wastewater under isothermal conditions. Analytical calculations for the leakage through concrete/
GCL liners for the four GCLs showed that the leakage was below the allowable limits specified by
the Australian, British, and American standards.

KEYWORDS: Geosynthetics, Geosynthetic clay liner, Concrete, Lagoons, Interface transmissivity,

Hydraulic conductivity, Swell index, Cation exchange

REFERENCE: Rowe, R. K. and Hosney, M. S. (2015). Interface transmissivity and hydraulic

conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete. Geosynthetics International, 22, No. 1, 48–69.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/gein.14.00031]

1. INTRODUCTION
Treatment of sewage in lagoon-based systems is one of
the oldest forms of wastewater treatment, but it is still
widely used (FCM 2004). During normal daily operations,
the wastewater arriving at the sewage treatment plant first
goes through preliminary treatment which includes the
removal of all large solids by screening. Following this,
the wastewater is directed to secondary treatment lagoons
where sedimentation, biological treatment, and clarifica-
1072-6349 # 2015 Thomas Telford Ltd
tion take place in the same lagoon. The clear effluent from
the secondary treatment lagoon(s) is then conveyed to an
equalisation basin which controls the flow of the clear
water to tertiary treatment lagoons for further biological
treatment (USEPA 2004).
Sewage treatment lagoons are constructed by excavation
of relatively large shallow basins (1.5 to 6.0 m deep;
Grady et al. 1999). To minimise the leakage of the
wastewater from the lagoons, they are lined with a low
permeability material (Rowe and Orsini 2003; Benson et
48
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
al. 2004; Rowe 2012). One liner system used for the
secondary treatment lagoons and equalisation basins in-
volves a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) together with
lightly-reinforced cast-in-place concrete above the GCL
(NRCS 2003). Typically, the minimum concrete slab
thickness is 0.1 m with a maximum joint spacing of 24 to
36 times the slab thickness (ACI 2001; NRCS 2007).
Expansion joints are typically 12–25 mm in width and
filled with joint filler, whereas the construction joints are
2–4 mm in width (ACPA 1992).
Although the main function of the concrete is to protect
the GCL and provide a firm surface for equipment during
maintenance, the low permeability of concrete (in order of
1014 to 1010 m/s; Tsivilis et al. 2003; Neville 2006) over
a relatively large area between permeable joints means
that it can actually play a significant role in reducing
leakage through what is in essence a composite concrete/
GCL liner system. With this basal liner system, the
wastewater can flow down through any hydraulically
significant fully penetrating joints in the concrete (i.e. the
construction joints) and then laterally in the transmissive
zone between the concrete and the GCL to a limited
distance (called the ‘wetted zone’ or ‘wetted radius’).
Within the wetted zone, wastewater can flow down
through the GCL with the magnitude of the flow depend-
ing on the hydraulic gradient (i.e. water pressure in the
transmissive zone immediately above the GCL) and the
hydraulic conductivity of the GCL at the point in ques-
tion.
Issues concerning leakage through composite liners
comprised of a geomembrane (GMB) as a primary liner
and a GCL as a secondary liner due to defects in the
GMB (i.e. holes) and/or holes in wrinkles in the GMB
have been examined by a number of researchers (Giroud
and Bonaparte 1989; Harpur et al. 1993; Giroud 1997;
Rowe 1998, 2005, 2012; Cartaud et al. 2005; Take et al.
2007; Barroso et al. 2008, 2010; Saidi et al. 2008; Mendes
et al. 2010a; Chappel et al. 2012a, 2012b; El-Zein et al.
2012; Rowe and Abdelatty 2012a; Rowe et al. 2012). The
findings from this research are helpful in understanding
the factors that may affect the leakage through a concrete/
GCL composite liner; however, to the authors’ knowledge,
the factors affecting the leakage through the composite
concrete/GCL liner have not been previously reported.
Based on the studies of GMB/GCL composite liners
cited above, the leakage through concrete/GCL liner
system may be expected to be primarily a function of: (i)
the geometry of the lagoon and concrete panels, (ii) the
wastewater head, (iii) the concrete/GCL interface trans-
missivity (Ł), and (iv) the hydraulic conductivity (k) of the
GCL. The first two items are established by the design.
The interface transmissivity is a measure of the resistance
to lateral flow in the transmissive zone that may be
envisioned between the concrete panel and the GCL. As
most commonly used GCLs include a layer of bentonite
encapsulated between two geotextiles (GTXs), the upper
GTX in contact with the concrete represents a potential
transmissive zone. However at the time of writing this
paper, there is no published data regarding the magnitude
of the concrete/GCL interface transmissivity. In addition,
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
49
the effect of the hydration of a GCL with moisture from
concrete and the subsequent interaction with wastewater
on the hydraulic conductivity of the GCL has not been
addressed in the literature.
The objectives of this research are to (i) examine the
interface transmissivity between four different GCL pro-
ducts (with untreated or polymer-enhanced bentonite, and
either powdered or granular bentonite) and a 0.1 m thick
cast-in-place concrete above the GCL for up to 14 months
using synthetic wastewater (with chemistry similar to that
in sewage treatment lagoons) as a permeant; (ii) investi-
gate the effect on the hydraulic conductivity and chemical
characteristics of the four GCL products of hydration with
moisture from concrete followed by exposure to synthetic
wastewater under either (iia) isothermal conditions while
the GCL is still under the concrete for up to 12 months, or
(iib) simulated wet–dry and/or cool–heat cycles for up to
6 months; and (iii) compare, for one typical lagoon, the
calculated leakage for the four GCLs based on the
experimental data obtained from this research.
2. BACKGROUND
2.1. Calculation of leakage through a composite liner
system
Rowe (1998) presented an analytical solution for the
leakage through a GMB/GCL liner system for the case
where a hole coincides with a wrinkle in a GMB,
assuming unobstructed lateral flow along the length (L)
and across the width (2b) of the wrinkle and lateral flow
between the GMB and the soil outside the wrinkle. This
equation allows consideration of interactions between
adjacent similar wrinkles assumed to be spaced at a
distance 2x apart and the leakage (Q) is given by
 
1  eÆ(xb) hd
Q ¼ 2Lk b þ (1)
Æ D
where L is the length of the wrinkle (m); 2b is the width of
the wrinkle (m); Æ ¼ [k/(DŁ)]0.5; k is the hydraulic con-
ductivity of the GCL (m/s); Ł is the transmissivity of the
GMB/GCL interface (m2/s); D is the thickness of the GCL
(m); and hd is the head loss across the composite liner (m).
The same equation could be used to estimate the
leakage through GCL overlain by cast-in-place concrete
used to construct lagoons for retaining wastewater at
sewage treatment plants. In this case, the length L is the
length of the interconnected construction joints between
the concrete panels; 2b is the width of the construction
joints between adjacent concrete panels; Ł is the transmis-
sivity of the concrete/GCL interface; and hd is the head of
the wastewater above the GCL at the joint location.
2.2. Interface transmissivity of GCLs in composite
liners
There is a lack of transmissivity data for the concrete/
GCL composite liners and there is only a limited number
of studies examining the factors affecting the transmissiv-
ity of the interface between a GMB overlying a GCL.
Harpur et al. (1993) examined the effect of: (i) the type
50
of the cover GTX of the GCL (woven, nonwoven, or none
(i.e. for a product with bentonite glued to a lower GMB
only)), and (ii) the grain size of the bentonite (granular or
powdered) on the value of Ł between GCL and GMB by
testing five different GCLs under 7 or 70 kPa normal
stress. The GCL comprised granular bentonite glued to a
lower GMB with no geosynthetic covering the GCL
showed the lowest transmissivity (Ł ¼ 3 3 1012 m2/s),
because no GTX was present in the transmissive zone. At
7 kPa stress, the Ł for GCLs with woven or nonwoven
geotextiles was in the range of 3 3 1011 < Ł < 9 3
1011 m2/s, whereas at 70 kPa stress, Ł for GCL with
woven cover GTX was one order of magnitude lower than
that for the GCL with nonwoven cover GTX. This
difference suggests that the effect of the type of the cover
GTX is related to the confining stress, at least when
comparing results at 7 and 70 kPa. They obtained a lower
interface transmissivity (by about one order of magnitude)
for a GCL with powdered bentonite than for one with
granular bentonite. There was no clear trend for the effect
of the confining stress (7 or 70 kPa) on Ł as increasing the
confining stress reduced Ł for some GCLs but had
virtually no effect for others.
Barroso et al. (2006) examined the influence of: (i)
confining stress, (ii) type of cover GTX of the GCL
(woven or nonwoven), and (iii) the grain size of the
bentonite (granular or powdered) on the flow rate through
GMB/GCL composite liners by conducting tests at small
scale (0.2 m diameter GCL sample over 0.042 m thick
compacted clay), intermediate scale (1.0 m diameter GCL
sample over 0.27 m thick compacted clay), and large scale
(2.2 m diameter GCL sample over 0.27 m thick compacted
clay) to check the possibility of extrapolating the results
obtained from the small-scale tests to field conditions. In
all tests, a 3 mm diameter prescribed circular hole was at
the middle of the GMB sample overlying the GCL sample.
Test results showed that there was no practically signifi-
cant effect of the confining stress over the range examined
(25–200 kPa), the type of cover GTX, or the grain size of
the bentonite on the flow rates with Q ¼ 0.56–
2.4 3 1011m3/s. Finally, leakage values obtained from the
small-scale tests were found to overestimate leakage com-
pared to the larger-scale tests; thus, flow rates and Ł
measured in small-scale tests represented an upper bound
for what would have been obtained at field.
Mendes et al. (2010a) investigated the effect of the
manufacturing process of GCLs and the nature of bento-
nite in the GCL on the GMB/GCL interface transmissivity
by testing the flow through a defect in a GMB (i.e. 4 or
10 mm diameter hole) overlying four different GCL
products manufactured with two different bonding pro-
cesses (needle-punched or stitch-bonded) and different
bentonite (Na- or Ca-bentonite). At steady-state condi-
tions, no significant difference was measured for the flow
rates and the interface transmissivity values (Ł ¼
1.9–3.0 3 1011 m2/s) obtained for all tested GCLs. In
addition, the influence of the size of the hole in the GMB
on the measured Ł was negligible. The same conclusion
regarding the effect of the hole size in a GMB on Ł was
reported by Koerner and Koerner (2002).
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
Barroso et al. (2010) evaluated the GMB/GCL interface
transmissivity by performing a series of leakage tests
through laboratory-simulated composite liners comprised
of (from top to bottom) a GMB with a circular hole, a
needle-punched GCL with nonwoven cover GTX, and a
compacted clay liner (CCL) under six different confining
pressures ranging from 25 to 200 kPa. Test results indi-
cated that the increase in confining pressures has a negli-
gible practical impact on Ł for the pressures examined.
The leakage through 17 laboratory-scale composite
liners was investigated by Touze-Foltz et al. (2006) for
various configurations including GMB/CCL, GMB/GTX/
CCL, and GMB/GCL/CCL. When a nonwoven GTX was
placed between the CCL and the GMB, the Ł value
increased by three to four orders of magnitude compared
with the case of GMB in direct contact with a CCL. The
same observation regarding the effect of the GTX on Ł
was reported by Estornell and Daniel (1992). On the other
hand, there was no significant difference in the Ł values
between the case of CCL alone and the case of GCL/CCL
soil liner. Although there was a nonwoven GTX between
the GMB and the bentonite in the GCL (i.e. the cover GTX
of the GCL) for the case of the GMB/GCL/CCL, bentonite
intrusion into the cover GTX appeared to minimise the
lateral flow in comparison with the case of the GTX alone
in the GMB/GTX/CCL showing that the effect of a GTX
on Ł differed substantially depending on whether GTX was
used alone or as a part of a GCL. These results highlight
the fact that the transmissivity of an interface between two
components of a composite liner is highly dependent on
the interaction between the two components and cannot be
assessed by testing each component in isolation.
The aforementioned studies only considered water as
the permeant and did not assess the effect of chemical
interaction (either from cation exchange with subgrade or
interaction with the permeant) upon interface transmissiv-
ity. However, the very similar interface transmissivity
values obtained for the GCLs with Na- and Ca-bentonite
(Mendes et al. 2010a) provided a hint that the effect may
be small. To address this issue, Rowe and Abdelatty
(2012a) examined the migration of 0.14 mol/l NaCl solu-
tion through a 10 mm diameter hole in a GMB in direct
contact with a GCL (with natural Na-bentonite) and
adjacent silty sand soil under 0.3 or 1.0 m hydraulic head.
Test results showed that the interaction between the GCL
and cations in the permeant over 3 years did not cause any
increase in the Ł values and the leakage only increased by
3% despite the one order of magnitude increase in the k of
the GCL within the wetted radius suggesting that the key
parameter controlling the leakage through a composite
liner is the interface transmissivity. In addition, the value
of Ł was not affected by the hydraulic head within the
range examined (0.3–1.0 m under the same applied stress).
2.3. Hydraulic conductivity of GCLs
2.3.1. Composition of cement and calcium leaching from
concrete
In the concrete/GCL liner system, the concrete is poured
directly onto the GCL. Portland cement, which is the
fundamental ingredient providing strength to the concrete,
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
is comprised mainly of calcium silicate (,50% tricalcium
silicate ((CaO)3. SiO2) and ,25% dicalcium silicate
((CaO)2. SiO2)) together with some aluminium and iron
(Mindess and Young 1981; Nawy 2008). In the short-term,
when water is added to the cement during the preparation
of concrete, tricalcium silicate rapidly reacts releasing
Ca2+ and OH- and the pH quickly rises to 12–13 because
of the release of OH- (Alonso et al. 2006). This reaction
slowly continues to produce Ca2+ and OH- until the system
becomes saturated.
The solid hydrates of the hardened cement paste are
more persistent at high pH (. 12). In the long-term, when
cement is in prolonged contact with water characterised
by near-neutral or lower pH, the Ca2+ leaching from the
concrete could continue with time at a slow rate (Ryu et
al. 2002; Alonso et al. 2006) because of the reaction
between the dicalcium silicate and water. The Ca2+
leaching is mainly controlled by two processes (Kuhl and
Meschke 2001). The first process is the calcium dissolu-
tion and the other one is the transport of the Ca2+ by
diffusion into the water. Calcium ions are generated via
Ca(OH)2 as follows (Saito and Deguchi 2000; Lu et al.
2007)
2Ca2 :SiO4 þ 5H2 O ! 3CaO:2SiO2: 4H2 O þ Ca(OH)2
(2)
Ca(OH)2 ! Ca2þ þ 2OH (3)
Alonso et al. (2006) examined the leaching of Ca2+
from concrete employing two types of leaching tests: a
running water test (in which water was moving above and
below concrete slices at a rate of 7 ml/h) and a tank-water
test (in which concrete cylinders were immersed in settled
water inside containers). The water used was natural
ground water (pH ¼ 7.9, Ca2+ ¼ 33 mg/l). For the running
water test, the accumulative Ca2+ leached from concrete
after 1.5 years was 1200–3600 mg/l (30–90 mmol/l). For
the tank-water test, the accumulative Ca2+ concentration in
the settled water after 1 year was 400 mg/l (10 mmol/l).
The difference in the amount of Ca2+ leached from
concrete between the two leaching tests is because the
water in the tank-water test was stationary, such that with
increasing the Ca2+ concentration with time, the concentra-
tion gradient from the concrete to the water was reduced,
reducing diffusion of Ca2+ from concrete to water.
Lin et al. (2011) evaluated the rate of Ca2+ leaching
from concrete cylinders prepared with 0.45 to 0.65 water/
cement ratios then was immersed in water for 28 days.
Test results showed that the rate of Ca2+ leaching is 2.53–
5.00 3 102 mg/l.h, with a lower rate for concrete mix
prepared at lower water/cement ratio. Based on these
results, when concrete will be immersed in water for
1 year, the Ca2+ concentration will be 220–440 mg/l,
which is consistent with the values obtained from Alonso
et al. (2006) for the tank-water test.
2.3.2. Effect of calcium-solution permeation on the
hydraulic conductivity of GCLs
As indicated in the previous section, the leaching of
calcium from concrete could increase the Ca2+ concentra-
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
51
tion in the wastewater above the concrete/GCL liner
system. The bentonite in conventional GCLs is mainly a
Na-montmorillonite with the Na+ ions are the predominant
cations in the exchangeable complex of the montmorillo-
nite (Rowe et al. 2004). GCLs with Na-bentonite are
characterised by its low hydraulic conductivity
(< 5 3 1011 m/s) when permeated with low ionic
strength solution (e.g. deionised or tap water) under
realistic confining stresses (Daniel et al. 1997; Petrov and
Rowe 1997; Petrov et al. 1997a, 1997b; Lin and Benson
2000; Shackelford et al. 2000, 2010; Jo et al. 2001; Lee
and Shackelford 2005). However, several studies have
shown that the Na-bentonite is sensitive to chemical
interactions with the hydrating liquid and the replacement
of Na+ in the bentonite by divalent cations (mainly Ca2+)
can significantly increase the hydraulic conductivity
(Shackelford 1994; Gleason et al. 1997; Lin and Benson
2000; Shackelford et al. 2000, 2010; Egloffstein 2001;
Shan and Lai 2002; Jo et al. 2005; Bouazza et al. 2006,
2007; Benson et al. 2010a, 2010b, 2011; Scalia and
Benson 2010, 2011; Scalia et al. 2011). Rowe and
Abdelatty (2012b) performed hydraulic conductivity tests,
using flexible wall permeameters, on a GCL at an effec-
tive stress of 18 kPa and a hydraulic gradient of 80 with a
12.5 mmol/l CaCl2 solution (Ca2+ concentration ¼
500 mg/l) as the permeant for . 540 days and 50 pore
volumes (PVs). During the first five PVs, no measurable
change in k was measured compared to the initial k value
(1.3 3 1011 m/s). After five PVs, k increased gradually to
3 3 1010 m/s after approximately 50 PVs.
Jo et al. (2005) conducted long-term hydraulic conduc-
tivity tests using flexible wall permeameters on a GCL
for . 2.5 years and up to 686 PVs using deionised water
(concentrations of Ca2+ and Cl were ,0.02 mg/l and
,0.04 mg/l, respectively), and CaCl2 solutions with differ-
ent concentrations (5, 10, 20, 50, 100, 500 mmol/l;
Ca2+ ¼ 200–20000 mg/l) as permeants. Test results
showed that permeation of GCL with deionised water
caused no significant change in k value after 3.7 years of
testing with 60 PVs passed through the GCL. On the other
hand, permeation with CaCl2 solutions resulted in an
increase in k by at least one order of magnitude with the
extent depending on the concentration. For 10 mmol/l
CaCl2 solution (400 mg/l Ca2+), k increased from
2.8 3 1011 m/s to 1.7 3 1010 m/s after 2.5–2.9 years of
permeation with 304–673 PVs. When 100 mmol/l CaCl2
solution (4000 mg/l Ca2+) was used as a permeant, k
increased by three orders of magnitude to 1.1 3 108 m/s
after 1 year of permeation with 44 PVs.
The combined effect of the cation exchange between
Na+ in the bentonite and the Ca2+ in the permeating liquid
and the exposure to wet–dry cycles has been reported to
cause a greater increase in the k of the GCL compared to
GCL that only experienced cation exchange. For example,
Lin and Benson (2000) conducted a series of k tests on
GCL specimens under an effective confining stress of
17 kPa and hydraulic gradient of 80 using either deionised
water or 12.5 mmol/l CaCl2 solution (500 mg/l Ca2+) as a
permeant then exposed the tested GCL specimens to wet–
dry cycles. After five wet–dry cycles, the k of specimens
52
permeated with the CaCl2 solution increased to
2.8 3 109 m/s (i.e. two orders of magnitude higher than k
of GCL specimens permeated with deionised water after
being subjected to the same number of wet–dry cycles).
3. METHODS AND TEST SET-UP
3.1. Interface transmissivity test
The interface transmissivity tests were conducted using
circular high-density polyethylene (HDPE) plastic cells
(Figure 1) with an internal diameter of 0.26 m and height
of 0.3 m. In each cell, a 0.26 m diameter GCL sample
was placed in the bottom of the cell. The 0.02 m strip
from the outside perimeter of the carrier GTX of the
GCL was removed to form a 0.02 m wide gap around
bentonite in the GCL (Figure 1). Thus, the diameter of
the cover GTX was 0.26 m, whereas the diameter of the
bentonite layer and the carrier GTX was 0.22 m. The
0.02 m gap around the bentonite layer was filled with
gravel that passed the 8 mm sieve and was retained on
the 6 mm sieve to form a drainage layer around the
bentonite. To minimise the bentonite loss during the test
set-up and to avoid the clogging of the drainage layer by
bentonite during the test, a nonwoven GTX strip was
placed around the edge of the exposed bentonite to act as
a filter. The internal wall of each cell was then coated
with lubricant to minimise the friction between the
concrete to be cast above the GCL and the cell. To form
a prescribed hole in the concrete, an 8 or 16 mm internal
diameter stainless steel tube was placed vertically above
the GCL directly on the cover GTX in the middle of the
GCL sample then a 0.1 m thick layer of concrete was
poured above the GCL and around the stainless steel
tube. The cells were then placed in a temperature-
controlled room at 208C to allow the concrete to cure and
harden for 2 weeks. After the 2-week period, an elevated
Control valve
Flexible tube
1.0 or 2.5 m
8 or 16 mm
ID stainless
steel tube
Bentonite
Cover GTX
0.1 m 0.02 m
GTX strip
Effluent
6 mm diameter hole 0.26 m
Figure 1. Schematic of test set up examining concrete/GCL
interface transmissivity (not to scale)
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
tank was connected to the stainless steel tube via a
flexible tube and the elevated tank was filled with
synthetic wastewater at 1.0 or 2.5 m head above the GCL.
Before starting the test, a steel weight was placed above
the concrete to apply a stress of 10 kPa for 1.0 m head or
25 kPa for 2.5 m head to correspond to the weight of the
water acting on the concrete in a field situation. To start
the test, the control valve was opened and then the
wastewater flowed from the elevated tank downward
through the stainless steel tube (the stainless steel tube
was not been removed to ensure no water uptake by the
concrete through the surface of the hole during the test)
then laterally in the transmissive zone between the con-
crete and the GCL to the drainage layer. The effluent
flowed into the drainage layer around the perimeter of the
GCL sample first, and then went out of the test cell
through a 6 mm diameter hole (Figure 1) to an effluent
bottle. While the tests were ongoing, the drop in the
water level in each elevated tank and the weight of water
collected in each effluent bottle were recorded with time
(during the test, the rate of evaporation was measured
and considered when calculating Ł). The inflow tank for
each test was refilled when the water level approached
the bottom of the tank. Thus, the test is a falling head
test. The head above the GCL varied between 1.0 and
0.8 m for the tests running under 1.0 m nominal head and
between 2.5 and 2.3 m for the tests running under 2.5 m
nominal head.
One may expect that flow at, and near, the interface
between the concrete and GCL may take the following
paths (which would be similar to those at a GMB/GCL
interface as described by Harpur et al. (1993)).
(a) Flow in the interface between the concrete and the
upper cover GTX of the GCL, if there is no intimate
contact between the concrete and GCL. However, the
swelling of the bentonite in the GCL and its
extrusion through the cover GTX has the potential to
seal imperfections/small irregularities at the concrete
surface/GCL interface.
(b) Flow through the cover GTX itself. This will be
governed by the transmissivity of the GTX and will
Inflow
elevated tank be reduced by (i) hydration of any bentonite initially
present in the cover GTX, and (ii) the intrusion of
bentonite from the core of the GCL into the upper
GTX.
HDPE (c) Flow through the contact between the cover GTX
plastic cell
and the underlying bentonite, which depends on the
Dead load of surface characteristics of the GTX and the degree of
10 or 25 kPa intrusion of the bentonite into the cover GTX.
Concrete
Assuming that the GCL and the concrete are not
Drainage layer adsorbing any of the water entering through the central
filled with tube (this assumption is met at steady state when
fine gravel
inflow ¼ outflow), and the flow at the interface is axisym-
Carrier GTX metric, a closed form solution can be obtained to allow
the calculation of the net interface transmissivity (the
combination of the three factors noted above) in a falling
head test, namely (Harpur et al. 1993)
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete 53
HDPE plastic cell
a ln (R=Ro ) ln(H=H o ) Thermocouples
Ł¼ (4)
2::t
Fiber glass insulation

where Ł is the interface transmissivity; Ho is the initial Synthetic wastewater

water head above the GCL; H is the final water head
0.15
above the GCL; t is the time taken for water to drop from 3 mm joint weep
Ho to H; R is the radius of the GCL sample (0.11 m); Ro
Bentonite paste
is the radius of the hole in concrete (4 or 8 mm); and a is
0.10 m Concrete Concrete
the cross sectional area of the inflow tank. GTX-B
GCL
The mass of the effluent also was used to calculate the GTX-A
~0.05 m
Ł assuming a constant head test condition. In this case, the Geonet
average head above the GCL (average between initial and 0.26 m
final head within a specific period of time) and the (a) Drainage port
volume of water collected within this specific period of 50
Dry cycles
time was used to calculate the Ł as follows Target air temperature
40
Q: ln(R=Ro )
Ł¼ (5)

2::H avg
where Q is the flow rate (Q ¼ volume/time); Havg is the
average water head above the GCL; R is the radius of the
GCL sample; and Ro is the hole radius.
3.2. GCL hydraulic conductivity and chemical
characteristics tests
During the operation of the treatment lagoons, the GCL is
subjected to different exposure conditions that might affect
its hydraulic conductivity. In tests reported herein, con-
sideration was given for four different exposure conditions
(denoted as Series 1, 2, 3 and 4).
3.2.1. Series 1: GCLs subjected to wet–dry and
cool–heat cycles
The wastewater level inside the treatment lagoons fluctu-
ates daily between minimum and maximum levels because
of the difference between the inflow and the outflow
wastewater through the lagoon and evaporation. Because of
the water level fluctuations, the GCL at the construction
joints located within the zone where the water level
fluctuates could be exposed daily to air for a period of time
including the period during the hottest part of the day. Thus,
the GCL could be subjected to a daily wet–dry cycle with
the worst case being for the GCL near the top of the lagoon
which is the part that would be exposed to air for the
longest period of time. However, the leakage through the
concrete/GCL liner at a joint is also greater the greater the
water head and from that perspective, the worst case with
respect to the impact of exposure to air is near the bottom
of the fluctuating zone. Considering the combination of the
two factors, the worst case is likely midway in the range of
the water level fluctuations. Thus, assuming a typical
change in wastewater head of 0.5 m, Series 1 simulates a
GCL below a cast-in-place concrete at a construction joint
located at 0.25 m below the high water level and subjected
to a daily wet–dry and cool–heat cycles.
Figure 2a shows a schematic for the test set-up to
examine the effect of GCL hydration with moisture from
concrete followed by a series of wet–dry and cool–heat
cycles (Series 1) on the GCL performance. HDPE plastic
cells with outside edges and base thermally insulated from
the outside by fibre glass sheets were used to contain the
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Temperature (°C)
30
20
10
Wet cycle Wet cycle
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24
Time (h)
(b)
Figure 2. Examining the effect of hydration by moisture from
concrete followed by simulated wet–dry and cool–heat cycles
on the GCL performance using synthetic wastewater as a
permeant (Series 1) (a) schematic diagram for the test set up
(not to scale) and (b) target thermal cycles
simulated composite liner. The insulation of the cells was
intended to ensure one-dimensional heat flow during the
exposure to the thermal cycles to best simulate the field
conditions. To set up Series 1 configuration, identical test
cells were prepared by placing a circular geonet (GNT)
layer followed by a circular GTX layer (GTX-A; needle-
punched nonwoven with mass per unit area of 2240 g/m2)
and a circular GCL sample in the bottom of each cell (the
diameter of the GNT, GTX, and GCL was 0.26 m). The
function of the GNT layer was to allow the drainage of
any water that passed through the GCL to outside the cell
through the drainage port in the bottom of the cell (see
Figure 2a), whereas geotextile GTX-A acted as a founda-
tion layer for the GCL and it was used rather than soil as a
foundation layer to ensure that any change in the GCL
performance was attributed to the interaction with the
concrete and/or the wastewater but not with any under-
lying soil. Above the GCL sample, a thin sacrificial
needle-punched nonwoven GTX (GTX-B; needle-punched
nonwoven with mass per unit area of 137 g/m2) was placed
to allow moisture from the concrete to pass through but to
avoid the GCL sticking to the concrete. To minimise any
wettability issues, the GTXs A and B were soaked in the
synthetic wastewater before being placed below and above
the GCL. The edges of the GTX-B and the GCL sample
were sealed using bentonite paste to avoid side wall
leakage during the wet cycles. Before casting the concrete,
the internal surface of each test cell was coated with
54
lubricant starting from the GTX-B level up to 0.1 m above
the GTX level. To form a 3 mm wide construction joint, a
3 mm thick plastic plate was placed above GTX-B across
the diameter of the cell and the 0.1 m thick concrete layer
was poured above GTX-B. The test cells were then placed
in a temperature-controlled room at 208C.
After 2 weeks of curing, the plastic plate used to form
the construction joint was removed and the concrete edges
with the container were sealed with bentonite paste and
silicon. Finally, the test cells were placed in a tempera-
ture-controlled room with programmable cooling and
heating units. The target room temperature was pro-
grammed to vary daily from 158C during the wet cycles to
408C during the dry cycles (Figure 2b). During the wet
cycles, synthetic wastewater was placed to a height of
0.25 m above the GCL to allow moisture to reach the
GCL through the joint. At the end of each wet cycle (i.e.
the beginning of a dry cycle), the water was drained from
the cell through a weep hole located at the bottom of the
joint (Figure 2a). The cells were subjected to two wet–dry
and cool–heat cycles per day. Each dry cycle was 4 h long
to simulate a drop in the water level during the morning
and afternoon periods. The duration of the first wet cycle
was 1.5 h (see Figure 2b) representing the possible in-
crease in water level at noon, whereas the second wet
cycle was 13.5 h long representing the water level in the
lagoon during the night. To measure the temperature
above the GCL and the concrete block, two thermocouples
were installed above them (Figure 2a).
Test cells were terminated after 1, 3 and 6 months of
exposure to two wet–dry and cool–heat cycles per day.
GCL samples were exhumed from the terminated cells
and the k, swell index (SI), and exchangeable cations (EC)
were evaluated for GCL specimens exhumed directly from
below the joint. For one case (for test terminated after 1
month), an additional GCL specimen was extracted from
below the concrete away from the joint location to check
the effect of the thermal cycles, if any, on the k away from
the construction joint within the diameter examined.
3.2.2. Series 2: GCLs subjected to cool–heat cycles
During the maintenance of lagoons, the wastewater is
completely drained and the lagoons stay dry for a period of
time. During this period of time, the GCL below the
concrete at the construction joint locations is exposed to air
and could dry out. Thus, Series 2 simulated the case of a
GCL hydrated from the moisture from concrete and then
subjected to cool–heat cycles (representing the change in
the air temperature through the day). The set-up of Series 2
cells was the same as for the Series 1 cells (Figure 2a) and
the cool–heat cycles were similar to those applied in Series
1 tests as described above (Figure 2b); the only difference
compared to Series 1 was that during the cool cycles in
Series 2 there was no wastewater added above the GCL. This
test was terminated after 3 months of exposure to cool–heat
cycles (this might be considered as conservative if the
maintenance occurred in a period of time less than 3
months). The GCL sample was exhumed from the termi-
nated cell and GCL specimens were extracted from below
the joint location to measure the k, SI, and EC of the GCL.
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
3.2.3. Series 3: GCLs at joint location subjected to
synthetic wastewater under isothermal conditions
Series 3 simulated the composite concrete/GCL liner at a
joint location that was always immersed in wastewater
(i.e. located below the low water level). The set-up of
Series 3 cells was exactly similar to Series 1 (Figure 2a),
except that the test cells were placed in a temperature-
controlled room at 208C and were not exposed to any wet–
dry or cool–heat cycles (as a result, there was no need to
have insulation around the cells). A synthetic wastewater
was always ponded above the GCL at 0.25 m. Test cells
were terminated after 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and GCL
specimens were recovered to measure the hydraulic and
chemical properties of the exhumed GCLs.
3.2.4. Series 4: GCLs below concrete away from the
joint locations and subjected to synthetic wastewater
under isothermal conditions
Series 4 tests (Figure 3) simulated a composite concrete/
GCL liner located away from the joints at elevation below
the low water level (always immersed in wastewater). The
configuration of this series was (from bottom up): a GNT
layer, a geotextile (GTX-A) layer, GCL sample, sacrificial
GTX-B layer, and 0.1 m thick poured concrete. The internal
wall of each cell above the GTX-B level was coated with
lubricant to minimise friction between the concrete and the
cell. Synthetic wastewater was ponded at 0.25 m above the
GCL level. Tests were terminated after 0 (i.e. after 2 weeks
of curing), 0.33 (10 days), 1, 3, 6 and 12 months and GCL
specimens were extracted to evaluate the hydraulic and
chemical performance of the GCLs. The difference between
Series 3 and 4 is that in Series 3 the wastewater could reach
the GCL easily though the construction joint whereas in
Series 4, the wastewater had to pass through the concrete
and may be loaded with more calcium than in Series 3 due
to the calcium leaching from the concrete.
3.2.5. Hydraulic conductivity test method
The k of exhumed GCLs was measured by permeating the
GCL specimens with synthetic wastewater in flexible wall
permeameters following ASTM D5084–03. The k tests
initially were conducted at a water head difference across
the GCL of 0.5 m under an average effective stress of
Synthetic wastewater
HDPE plastic cell
0.15 m
Bentonite paste
0.10 m Concrete GTX-B
GCL
GTX-A
~ 0.05m
Geonet
0.26 m internal diameter
Drainage port
Figure 3. Schematic of test set up examining the effect of
GCL hydration with moisture from concrete followed by
exposure to synthetic wastewater (not to scale)
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
3 kPa. This stress is the average effective stress acting on
the GCL at a joint (i.e. where there is no concrete directly
above the GCL) due to the water seepage force only. When
the GCL is below concrete away from the construction
joints, the effective stress acting on the GCL is higher than
the value used in the k tests described herein. Thus, the k
values obtained herein were conservative (i.e. high) for
GCLs located away from the joints. When the k value was
considered to have reached steady state, the head difference
was increased to 1.0 m and the effective stress increased to
6 kPa. When this k test reached steady state, the head
difference and the effective stress were increased to 4.5 m
and 23 kPa, respectively. The purpose of these increments
was to evaluate the effect of the increase in head and the
corresponding increase in the effective stress on the k
values. The k test was considered to reach steady state
when the following conditions were satisfied: (i) the k
value had stabilised (i.e. the variation in k value versus time
showed no significant upward or downward trends), (ii) the
ratio between the inflow and outflow was essentially unity,
and (iii) there was no significant change in the sample
thickness (i.e. no volume change). These tests were in-
tended to assess the effect of cation exchange during
hydration from the concrete and exposure to different
environmental conditions at specific points of time on the k
values of the GCLs and were not intended to be a long-term
compatibility study with respect to the permeating fluid.
3.2.6. Swell index and exchangeable cations test
methods
SI tests were conducted according to ASTM D5890–06,
except that air-dried bentonite was used instead of oven-
dried bentonite. This change was made because oven heating
of the GCL could cause changes in the bentonite character-
istics (ASTM D7503–10; Gu et al. 2001; Hosney and Rowe
2013). To conduct the SI test, GCL specimens were air-dried
in a fume hood until their mass reached equilibrium and then
the bentonite was extracted from these air-dried GCL speci-
mens and a portion of bentonite was used to measure the
water content. Finally, a portion of the air-dried bentonite
containing 2 g of solids was used for the SI test.
Soluble cations, bound cations, and the cation exchange
capacity of bentonite were measured following ASTM
D7503–10. The extracts from the soluble cations and
bound cation tests were analysed chemically using induc-
tively coupled plasma-mass spectrometry (ICP-MS). Am-
monia was measured in the extract from the cation
exchange capacity test using an autoanalyser to quantify
the nitrogen in the extract and then calculate the cation
exchange capacity.
4. MATERIALS
4.1. GCLs
Four GCLs were examined (Table 1), namely BENTOFIX
SRNWL GCL (Canadian, denoted as GCL1), ELCOSEAL
X2000 GCL (Australian; GCL2), BENTOFIX B4000 (Ger-
man; GCL3), and BENTOFIX SRNWE (Canadian; GCL4).
All four GCLs had a similar structure (needle-punched GCL
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
55
comprised of a layer of bentonite encapsulated between a
scrim-reinforced nonwoven carrier GTX and a staple fibre
nonwoven cover GTX and the needle-punched fibres were
thermally fused to the carrier GTX to enhance the reinfor-
cing bond, but there were some differences in the details.
The bentonites in GCL1, GCL2, and GCL3 were
untreated Na-bentonite. GCL4 contained a polymer-en-
hanced Na-bentonite, where the polymer enhancement was
intended to mitigate the effects of cation exchange on k.
GCL1 and GCL4 (the Canadian GCLs) had granular
bentonite while GCL2 and GCL3 had powdered bentonite.
During manufacturing, the finely ground, dry, powdered
bentonite particles (, 10% water content; Table 1) mi-
grate into the cover GTX as the needles pick up clay
during the needle-punching process, and some of these
powdered clay particles are rubbed off the needles as they
are withdrawn through the nonwoven cover GTX. It was
visually noted for GCL2 and GCL3 that bentonite partially
filled the pores of the cover GTX. This was not the case
for the North American GCL1 and GCL4 with granular
bentonite. For GCL2, 1280 g/m2 of bentonite had migrated
into the cover GTX compared to 840 g/m2 for GCL3
(Table 1). There was no detectable bentonite in the cover
GTX for GCL1 or GCL4 (Table 1). There was no
detectable bentonite in the carrier GTX for any product.
The total dry bentonite masses per unit area (i.e.
including that in the cover GTX) of the GCLs examined
were 4100, 4650, 4700 and 5000 g/m2 for GCLs 1, 2, 3
and 4, respectively. The SI of virgin bentonites was 24–
27 ml/2 g for all GCLs. The initial k for GCLs 1, 2, 3 and
4 were 4.3 3 1011, 3.7 3 1011, 3.9 3 1011 and
2.0 3 1011 m/s when the permeant was a synthetic waste-
water under an effective stress of 3 kPa and head differ-
ence across the GCL of 0.5 m.
4.2. Synthetic wastewater
The synthetic wastewater was prepared by adding chemi-
cals to deionised water to adjust the cations, anions, pH
and conductivity of the water to be as close as practicable
to the target values (Table 2) representative of the typical
chemical composition of domestic wastewater in the
treatment lagoons. According to the UNDTCD (1985), the
wastewater with the constituents presented in Table 2 is
classified as medium to strong domestic wastewater.
4.3. Concrete
The concrete mixture (Table 3) was prepared to be as
similar as practical to a mix being used in the construction
of lagoons in Australia, where concrete/GCL2 lined
lagoons have been in use for over a decade.
5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
5.1. Concrete/GCL interface transmissivity
5.1.1. Effect of powdered bentonite in cover GTX
The powdered bentonite in the nonwoven cover GTX of
GCL2 and GCL3 was hypothesised to swell and provide
more resistance to the lateral migration of water through
the cover GTX at the concrete/GGL interface than the
 56

Table 1. Initial properties of virgin needle-punched thermally treated GCLs examined

GCL

Test method GCL1 GCL2 GCL3 GCL4

Bentonite As-delivered form – Granular Powdered Powdered Granular

Polymer-enhanced – No No No Yes
Mass/area (g/m2) ASTM D5993–99 4100 (SD ¼ 240, n ¼ 10) 4650 (SD ¼ 400, n ¼ 4) 4700 (SD ¼ 45, n ¼ 4) 5000 (SD ¼ 340, n ¼ 14)
Initial (off roll) water content ASTM D4643–08 6 (SD ¼ 2, n ¼ 10) 9 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 4) 6 (SD ¼ 2, n ¼ 4) 8 (SD ¼ 2, n ¼ 3)
(%)
Swell index (ml/2 g) ASTM D5890–06a 25 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 3) 26 (SD ¼ 2, n ¼ 6) 27 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 3) 24 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 3)
CEC (cmol/kg)f ASTM D7503–10 78 (SD ¼ 2, n ¼ 3) 62 (SD ¼ 6, n ¼ 3) 93 (SD ¼ 20, n ¼ 3) 63 (SD ¼ 3, n ¼ 3)
Carrier GTX Type – SRNWb SRNWb SRNWb SRNWb
Mass (g/m2) ASTM D5261–92 260 (SD ¼ 10, n ¼ 5) 530 (SD ¼ 25, n ¼ 9) 440 (SD ¼ 15, n ¼ 5) 250 (SD ¼ 25, n ¼ 5)
Cover GTX Type – NWb NWb NWb NWb
Thickness (mm)c ASTM D5199–11 2.2 (SD ¼ 0.5, n ¼ 90) 2.3 (SD ¼ 0.8, n ¼ 90) 2.8 (SD ¼ 0.5, n ¼ 90) 2.2 (SD ¼ 0.5, n ¼ 90)
Mass(g/m2) ASTM D5261–92 230 (SD ¼ 5, n ¼ 3) 290 (SD ¼ 10, n ¼ 3) 310 (SD ¼ 10, n ¼ 3) 230 (SD ¼ 15, n ¼ 4)
Migrated bentonite mass/area ASTM D5993–99 0 1280e (SD ¼ 80, n ¼ 5) 840(e) (SD ¼ 55, n ¼ 5) 0
(g/m2)
GCL Needle punched – Yes Yes Yes Yes
Thermally treated – Yes Yes Yes Yes
Initial thickness (mm)c ASTM D5199–11 6.0 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 1275) 9.7 (SD ¼ 0.6, n ¼ 255) 9.5 (SD ¼ 0.6, n ¼ 255) 8.9 (SD ¼ 0.8, n ¼ 564)
Hydraulic conductivity (m/s)d ASTM D5084–03 4.3x1011 3.7x1011 3.9x1011 2.0x1011

Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1

Note: Values given are average: SD, standard deviation; n, number of samples.
a
Test conducted using air-dried bentonite instead of using oven-dried bentonite as specified in ASTM D5890–06.
b
NW, nonwoven geotextile; SRNW, scrim-reinforced nonwoven geotextile.
c
A line laser was used to measure thickness (Dickinson et al. 2010).
d
At effective stress ¼ 3 kPa and head difference ¼ 0.5 m with using synthetic wastewater (Table 2) as a permeant.
e
Mass of the migrated bentonite/area is included in the total bentonite mass/area presented above.
f
CEC, cation exchange capacity.
Rowe and Hosney
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete 57

Table 2. Chemical composition of the synthetic wastewater

Parameter Source compound Value

Target Measured

Ionic strength (mmol/l) – 14 16a

pH – 6.4–7.2 7.0 (SD ¼ 0.3, n ¼ 3)
Conductivity (ìS/m) – 10 8.5 (SD ¼ 0.2, n ¼ 3)
Alkalinity (mg/l)b CaCl2 (50 mg/l) 80 75 (SD ¼ 3, n ¼ 2)
Sulfate (mg/l) Na2SO4 (130 mg/l) 100 109 (SD ¼ 0.4, n ¼ 2)
Chloride (mg/l) NaCl (250 mg/l) + contribution from CaCl2 150 158 (SD ¼ 0.2, n ¼ 2)
Ammonia (mg/l) (NH4)2SO4 (18.5 mg/l) 5 5.0 (SD ¼ 0.1, n ¼ 2)
Sodium (mg/l) –c 200 193 (SD ¼ 4, n ¼ 2)
Nitrate (mg/l) NaNO3 (109 mg/l) 40 38 (SD ¼ 1, n ¼ 2)

Note: Values given are average: SD, standard P deviation; n, number of samples where multiple tests were performed.
a
Calculated as follows: ionic strength ¼ 1=2 C i Z 2i , where Ci is the measured molar concentration of ionic species i, and Zi is the principle
charge of ionic species i.
b
Alkalinity was measured using Metrohm Autotitrator. Alkalinity was adjusted by titration by adding CaCl2 in increments to the synthetic
wastewater until the target alkalinity was achieved.
c
Target value was satisfied from the contribution of the sodium in the three compounds used to provide anions.

Table 3. Composition of the concrete mixture

Compound Amount

General purpose Portland cement 430 kg/m3

Fly ash 110 kg/m3
20/7 mm crushed river gravel 900 kg/m3
11.2/9.5 mm crushed river gravel 150 kg/m3
5.6/4.76 mm coarse silica sand 380 kg/m3
0.2/0.075 mm fine sand 185 kg/m3
Water reducing admixture (Glenium 3030NS) 0.2 l/100 kg cementitious
Water/cementitious ratio 0.33
Nominal slumpa 75 mm

a
Per ASTM C143/C143M–10a.

granular bentonite in GCL1 and GCL4. To visually
investigate the potential to swell, square (0.1 m 3 0.1 m)
GCL coupons were cut from the four GCL products,
placed in a flat tray and covered by a 0.1 m thick pre-cast
concrete panel, and then the tray was filled with synthetic
wastewater to 0.04 m above the GCL to allow the GCL to
hydrate. The pre-cast concrete was used because cast-in-
place concrete adheres strongly to the cover GTX of the
GCL, thereby eliminating the chance to visually inspect
the cover GTX without massive disturbance. After 9 days
of hydration, the GCL coupons were recovered from
below the concrete. The cover GTX of GCLs 1 and 4
showed no visual signs for bentonite extrusion out of the
cover GTX (Figure 4a), although the bentonite between
the cover and carrier GTXs was well hydrated (Figure 4b).
In contrast, the bentonite extruded through the cover GTX
of GCLs 2 and 3 was easily observed (Figure 4c and 4d).
The ‘finger print’ left on the cover GTX of GCL2 in
Figure 4c gives a qualitative sense of the thickness of the
bentonite that had extruded through the cover GTX. This
visual investigation suggests that the interface transmissiv-
ity of the GCLs with powdered bentonite may be less than
this for GCLs with granular bentonite, which is quantita-
tively examined below.
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
5.1.2. GCL1 with granular bentonite
Figure 5 shows the change in the inferred interface
transmissivity for GCL1 with time based on the inflow
(Figure 5a) and the outflow (Figure 5b) measurements.
Table 4 gives the total inflow and outflow, and the inflow
and the outflow rates at the end of the period reported.
Because the GCL was not pre-hydrated before the test
set-up, the initial suction of the bentonite was relatively
high. Thus, the apparent Ł was high at the beginning of
the test, most likely because the granular bentonite had
not adequately hydrated to prevent the relatively (com-
pared to later times) high flow in the cover GTX at the
concrete/GCL1 interface. The difference between the in-
flow and outflow was attributed to the uptake of water by
the bentonite. During the first day, the Ł values for all
GCL1 samples (under 1.0 or 2.5 m head) were in the
range of 107–108 m2/s (i.e. similar to that expected for a
GMB/CCL interface; Rowe 2012). Between the second
and the fourth day, Ł decreased to 108–109 m2/s. Under
1.0 m head (10 kPa stress), Ł appeared to stabilise at 1.3–
2.0 3 1010 m2/s between the 12th and the 40th day
(depending on the specific test) with no measureable
difference in the Ł based on the inflow and the outflow
measurements. However, at this time, the bentonite gran-
58
A A
0.1 m
0.1 m
(a)
Finger print
0.1 m
B B
0.1 m
(c)
Figure 4. GCLs 1 and 2 after hydration for nine days with synthetic wastewater (a) plan view of GCL 1, (b) cross section A–A
indicated in (a), (c) plan view of GCL2 and (d) cross section B–B shown in (c)
ules appeared to have taken up moisture and the outside
of each granule had hydrated ending the first phase of
hydration. As water migrated into the granules, there was
further slow hydration (slow to the extent that there was
no measureable difference in Ł values calculated on the
basis of drop in the water level in the inflow tanks
( 1.0 mm) and the mass of effluent ( 0.01 g)) and
swelling of bentonite into the cover GTX that gave rise to
a continued slow decrease in Ł with time and between the
40th and the 112th days, Ł decreased by about one order
of magnitude from 1.3–2.0 3 1010 m2/s to 2.2–
5.3 3 1011 m2/s. After the 112th day (up to the 230th
day), the Ł values based on the inflow and the Ł outflow
had largely stabilised and were essentially the same,
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
8 mm
(b)
10 mm
(d)
indicating that the continuity of flow had been largely
achieved for GCL1 under 1.0 m wastewater head and
suggesting that it was taking up little or no more water by
hydration. The average Ł under 1.0 m head was 2.2–
5.3 3 1011 m2/s after 144–230 days of testing (Table 5)
with an overall average Ł of about 3.8 3 1011 m2/s.
These Ł values are of a similar magnitude to those
obtained by Barroso et al. (2008, 2010), Mendes et al.
(2010a, 2010b) and Rowe and Abdelatty (2012a) for
GMB/GCL interfaces and may be considered to be low Ł
values. Under 2.5 m head (25 kPa stress), the Ł value after
112 days of testing was 1.7–3.5 3 1012 m2/s based on
inflow and 1.6–2.0 3 1012 m2/s based on outflow. For
283 days (between the 112th and the 395th day), there was
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete 59
10⫺6
the GCL1 tests indicates that the increase in the stress
Test 1 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 8 mm hole
10 ⫺7 Test 2 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 8 mm hole above the composite concrete/GCL1 liner from 10 to
Interface transmissivity, θ (m2/s)

Test 3 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 16 mm hole 25 kPa resulted in a reduction in Ł by about one order of
Test 1 - GCL 1 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - 8 mm hole
10⫺8 Test 2 - GCL 1 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - 8 mm hole magnitude.
To ensure that the Ł values obtained for GCL1 was not
10⫺9
influenced by the hole size, one test was conducted similar
10⫺10 to those under 1.0 m head and 10 kPa stress, except that a
16 mm (instead of 8 mm in all other tests) internal
10⫺11 diameter stainless steel tube was used. After 148 days of
testing, the Ł value was 1.1 3 1011 m2/s (Figure 5),
10⫺12
which was slightly lower than those from the tests
10⫺13 conducted using the 8 mm diameter tubes (2.2–
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days) 5.3 3 1011 m2/s), suggesting that to the extent that the
(a) hole size had any effect, the results might be conservative
10⫺6 (on the high side) with the smaller tubes, although the
Test 1 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 8 mm hole difference is more likely due to minor sample variability.
10⫺7 Test 2 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 8 mm hole
Interface transmissivity, θ (m2/s)

10⫺8
10⫺9
10⫺10
10⫺11
10⫺12
10⫺13
0 50
Figure 5. Concrete/GCL1 interface transmissivity based on
(a) inflow and (b) outflow measurements
no significant change in Ł. At the 395th day, the measured
Ł based on both the inflow and the outflow was 1.9–
2.6 3 1012 m2/s (depending on the specific test) with an
overall average Ł of 2.3 3 1012 m2/s. These Ł values are
lower than those obtained by the previous research listed
above for GMB/GCL interfaces and may be considered to
be very low Ł values. A comparison of Ł inferred for all
Test 3 - GCL 1 - 10 kPa - 1 m - 16 mm hole All except one of the tests shown in Figure 5 are still
Test 1 - GCL 1 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - 8 mm hole ongoing to evaluate the long-term Ł. For one test at 1.0 m
Test 2 - GCL 1 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - 8 mm hole
head, after the steady-state flow conditions were achieved
and prior to termination, a blue dye was injected in the
influent water to visualise the flow pattern in the interface,
and the test was terminated at 230 days (Figure 5) when
the blue-coloured water appeared in the effluent. No blue
dye was observed in the carrier GTX, indicating that at
steady state, the effluent water collected in the drainage
layer had not migrated to the carrier GTX and all water in
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 the drainage layer was collected in the effluent bottle.
Time (days)
(b)
After removing the carrier GTX, no blue dye was ob-
served in the bentonite, suggesting that the bentonite was
not adsorbing any of the dyed water for hydration (i.e.
steady-state conditions had been satisfied before the dye
was introduced). The water content (w) of the exhumed
bentonite was 110  15%. The bentonite was then re-
moved and the cover GTX was investigated (Figure 6a).
The flow through the concrete/GCL interface was axisym-
metric (Figure 6a), indicating that the interface transmis-
sivity was relatively uniform within the cover GTX. Thus
with continuity of flow and axisymmetric conditions, the
assumptions upon which the closed form solution to
calculate the Ł values was based are satisfied. The cover

Table 4. Total inflow and outflow, inflow rate and outflow rate, and length of testing at the end of the reported period for
the interface transmissivity tests

GCL Head (m) Test Total inflow (ml) Total outflow (ml) Inflow rate (m3/s) Outflow rate (m3/s) Period (days)

GCL1 1.0 1 13600 13100 3.0 3 1011 2.4 3 1011 230

GCL1 1.0 2 2600 2100 9.9 3 1011 9.9 3 1011 144
GCL1 1.0 3 670 390 1.1 3 1011 5.8 3 1012 148
GCL1 2.5 1 9300 8400 9.0 3 1012 6.5 3 1012 395
GCL1 2.5 2 9800 9000 1.2 3 1011 8.9 3 1012 395
GCL2 1.0 1 94 0 3.3 3 1012 0 405
GCL2 1.0 2 96 0 3.3 3 1012 0 405
GCL2 2.5 1 130 0 1.6 3 1012 0 400
GCL2 2.5 2 120 0 1.6 3 1012 0 400
GCL3 1.0 1 220 0 6.6 3 1012 0 420
GCL3 1.0 2 710 0 1.8 3 1011 0 185
GCL3 2.5 1 1600 900 5.7 3 1012 1.7 3 1012 400
GCL3 2.5 2 240 0 6.5 3 1012 0 395
GCL3 2.5 3 800 0 4.1 3 1011 0 407
GCL4 1.0 1 2700 1400 4.9 3 1011 7.0 3 1012 407
GCL4 2.5 1 2700 1700 2.5 3 1011 3.6 3 1012 366

Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1

60 Rowe and Hosney

Table 5. Summary concrete/GCL interface transmissivity values (see text for detailed discussion)

GCL Ł (m2/s)

Head ¼ 1.0 m (stress ¼ 10 kPa) Head ¼ 2.5 m (stress ¼ 25 kPa)

GCL1a 2.2–5.3 3 1011 (3.8 3 1011)e 1.9–2.6 3 1012 (2.3 3 1012)e

GCL2b 1.8 3 1012 3.5 3 1013
GCL3c 3.7–9.5 3 1012 1.3–9.2 3 1012
GCL4d 3.0 3 1011–4.3 3 1012 (1.7 3 1011)e 5.7 3 1012–8.4 3 1013 (3.3 3 1012)e

a
Values based on both the inflow and outflow measurements at equilibrium for duplicate or triplicate tests at each water head (see Figure 5).
All tests, except one, are still ongoing.
b
Values based on the inflow measurements only for duplicate tests at each water head (see Figure 7). No outflow was collected after 405 days
of testing. These represent upper bound Ł values. Tests with GCL2 are still ongoing.
c
Values based on the inflow measurements only for duplicate tests at each water head (see Figure 8). No outflow was collected after 420 days
of testing, except for one test (see Table 4). These represent upper bound Ł values. Tests with GCL3 are still ongoing.
d
Values based on both the inflow and outflow measurements after 366–407 days of testing (the range is for Ł calculated based on the inflow
and outflow measurements for a single test at each head; see Figure 9). Tests are still ongoing.
e
Number in brackets is the average of the inflow and outflow.

GTX was cemented to the concrete such that peeling the

Cover GTX GTX off the concrete was extremely difficult; however,
the dye density was greatest at the interface with the
concrete (Figure 6b).

5.1.3. GCL2 and GCL3 with powdered bentonite in

cover GTX
Figure 7 shows the change in Ł between the concrete and
GCL2 (GCL with powdered bentonite) based on the inflow
measurements over 405 days of testing. The initial inflow
was much slower than the case for GCL1, due to the
powdered bentonite in the cover GTX taking up the water
and blocking any outflow. The GCL2 tests were highly
reproducible with negligible difference between the results
of duplicate tests. The inferred transmissivity at 405 days
The location
of hole in the
appeared to have stabilised at Ł ¼ 1.8 3 1012 and 3.5 3
concrete 1013 m2/s under 1.0 m head (10 kPa stress) and 2.5 m
(a) head (25 kPa stress), respectively. The higher Ł values
observed over the first few weeks were likely due to water
Concrete being taken up by the bentonite via hydration and hence do
not reflect the true transmissivity. No outflow was col-
lected over the 405 days of testing; thus, the Ł values based
Cover on the inflow may have overestimated the actual transmis-
GTX

10⫺6
Test 1 - GCL 2 - 10 kPa - 1 m
10⫺7 Test 2 - GCL 2 - 10 kPa - 1 m
Interface transmissivity, θ (m2/s)

Test 1 - GCL 2 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m

10⫺8 Test 2 - GCL 2 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m

10⫺9

10⫺10

10⫺11

10⫺12
(b)
10⫺13
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Figure 6. GCL 1 exhumed from the terminated interface Time (days)
transmissivity test (a) after removing the carrier GTX and
bentonite and (b) after peeling off part of the cover GTX Figure 7. Concrete/GCL2 interface transmissivity based on
from the concrete inflow measurements
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
sivity since moisture may still be slowly being lost to
hydration of the bentonite. Based on the inflow measured
up to the time of writing this paper, the average increase in
w of the GCL2 due to the inflow was calculated to be
between 35 and 62% depending on the test; this is in
addition to the hydration that occurred from the concrete.
All tests shown in Figure 7 are still ongoing. Under similar
test conditions, Ł for GCL2, with 1280 g/m2 of powdered
bentonite in the cover GTX, was about one order of
magnitude lower than that for GCL1 with granular bento-
nite and no bentonite in the cover GTX (Table 5). Although
the lack of continuity of flow lowers the confidence in the
specific calculated Ł value, the fact that the inflow is so
slow and no outflow has occurred in 405 days (in contrast
to the relatively rapid outflow from GCL1) shows that the
powdered bentonite in the cover GTX has significantly
lowered the interfaces transmissivity relative to GCL1.
Based on the available data, it certainly appears that the
concrete/GCL2 Ł < 2 3 1012 m2/s for 1.0 m head (10 kPa
stress) and even lower for 2.5 m head (25 kPa stress). This
will be confirmed with longer-term testing.
GCL3 had 840 g/m2 (compared to 1280 g/m2 for GCL2)
of powdered bentonite in a somewhat thicker cover GTX
than GCL2 (Table 1). The Ł from duplicate tests under
1.0 m head varied between 9.5 3 1012m2/s after 185 days
for one test and 3.7 3 1012 m2/s after 420 days for the
other test (Figure 8 and Table 5). The Ł value for three
identical tests under 2.5 m head varied between
1.3 3 1012 and 9.2 3 1012 m2/s after 395 to 407 days of
testing. This relatively wide range of Ł obtained for
GCL3, compared to GCL2, could be because the bentonite
may not have been uniformly distributed throughout the
cover GTX. This was not the case for GCL2 with
powdered bentonite because the mass per unit area of
bentonite in the cover GTX of GCL2 (,1280 g/m2) was
greater and the GTX was thinner (2.3 mm; giving about
560 g/m2 per mm thickness) than for GCL3 (,840 g/m2
in a 2.8 mm thick cover GTX giving about 300 g/m2 per
mm thickness) and as a result the bentonite was more
uniform in GCL2 than GCL3. However, the variability
appears to have reduced with time as the GCL was better
hydrated (see the data for Tests 1, 2 and 3 at 2.5 m head),
suggesting that there is a time effect probably related to
10⫺6
10⫺7
Interface transmissivity, θ (m2/s)
10⫺8
10⫺9
10⫺10
10⫺11
10⫺12
10⫺13
0 50 100 150
Figure 8. Concrete/GCL3 interface transmissivity based on
inflow measurements
Test 1 - GCL 3 - 10 kPa - 1 m
Test 2 - GCL 3 - 10 kPa - 1 m
Test 1 - GCL 3 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m
Test 2 - GCL 3 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m
Test 3 - GCL 3 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m
200 250 300 350 400
Time (days)
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
61
hydration of the bentonite (which will take a long time at
these low flow rates; Table 4). There is, as yet, no outflow
collected (except for one test under 2.5 m head; Table 4);
thus, Ł values obtained for GCL3 are based on inflow
measurements only and may overestimate the transmissiv-
ity. Based on the inflow measurements up to the time of
writing, the average increase in w for GCL3 due to the
inflow was calculated to be between 66 and 124 %
depending on the test. All tests shown in Figure 8 are
ongoing.
The average Ł for GCL3 (with powdered bentonite)
under 1.0 m head (6.6 3 1012 m2/s) was 3.6 times the
average Ł value (1.8 3 1012 m2/s) for GCL2 (with pow-
dered bentonite). Under 2.5 m head, the average Ł of
5.2 3 1012 m2/s for GCL3 was about one order of
magnitude higher than the average Ł of 3.5 3 1013 m2/s
for GCL2 and it could even have Ł similar to GCL1 (GCL
with granular bentonite), most likely as a result of the
non-uniform distribution of bentonite in the cover GTX.
Thus, whereas GCLs 2 and 3 look similar, they behave
differently; although both gave very low Ł values.
5.1.4. GCL4 with polymer-enhanced granular bentonite
Figure 9 shows Ł for GCL4 (GCL with polymer-enhanced
granular bentonite) based on the inflow and outflow meas-
urements over 366–407 days of testing. Under 1.0 m head,
the Ł values were 3.0 3 1011 and 4.3 3 1012 m2/s
(based on the inflow and outflow measurements, respec-
tively) with an average of 1.7 3 1011 m2/s, whereas under
2.5 m head, the Ł values were 5.7 3 1012 and 8.4 3
1013 m2/s (based on the inflow and outflow measure-
ments, respectively) with an average of 3.3 3 1012 m2/s.
These Ł values are similar to (at 1 m head based on
inflow) or lower than (outflow at 1 m head and both
inflow and outflow at 2.5 m head) the values reported by
Barroso et al. (2008, 2010), Mendes et al. (2010a, 2010b)
and Rowe and Abdelatty (2012a) for GMB/GCL interfaces
and may be considered to be very low Ł values. Over the
366 to 407 days of testing, steady-state conditions were
not reached (Figure 9) and the higher rate of inflow
compared to the rate of outflow measured at the time of
writing suggests that the bentonite is still slowly taking up
water. That said, the Ł values based on the outflow
10⫺6
GCL 4 - 10 kPa - 1 m - inflow
10⫺7 GCL 4 - 10 kPa - 1 m - outflow
Interface transmissivity, θ (m2/s)
GCL 4 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - inflow
10⫺8 GCL 4 - 25 kPa - 2.5 m - outflow
10⫺9
10⫺10
10⫺11
10⫺12
10⫺13
450 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Time (days)
Figure 9. Concrete/GCL4 interface transmissivity based on
inflow and outflow measurements
62
measurements for GCL4 were 3 to 10 times lower than
the Ł values for GCL1, suggesting that the polymer-
enhanced bentonite reduced Ł.
5.2. Hydraulic conductivity and chemical
characteristics of GCLs
5.2.1. Effect of exposure conditions on GCL1
To evaluate the change in k values with time for GCLs
below poured concrete at construction joint location and
exposed to wet–dry and cool–heat cycles (Series 1, see
Figure 2a), the target air temperatures were 158C and 408C
during the wet and dry cycles, respectively (Figure 2b).
The measured air temperature for a one-day period versus
the target air temperature is presented in Figure 10a.
Typically, during the wet cycles, the measured air tempera-
ture was 8–208C while during the dry cycles the air
temperature was 38–448C. The temperature of the GCL top
surface typically varied between 128C and 308C throughout
the day (Figure 10b) with a lag in the change in tempera-
ture relative to the change in the air and concrete top
surface temperatures (Figure 10b), due to the thermal mass
and resistance of the concrete above the GCL.
When GCL1 (below 0.1 m thick poured concrete with a
construction joint) was exposed to wet–dry and cool–heat
cycles (Series 1) for 1 month, the w of the GCL increased
from 6  2% (virgin) to 96  3%, and the k value of GCL
specimens from directly below the construction joint loca-
tion increased from 4.3 3 1011 m/s (virgin) to 1.3 3
50
Target air temperature
Measured air temperature
40
Temperature (°C)
30
20
10
0 purposes, the composite concrete/GCL liner will be
(a)
50
Concrete top surface
GCL top surface
40
Temperature (°C)
30
20
10
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Time (h)
(b)
Figure 10. (a) Target and measured air temperature, and
(b) temperature of the concrete and GCL top surfaces
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
1010 m/s under 0.5 m wastewater head and 3 kPa effective
stress (Table 6). The increase in the wastewater head on the
GCL with the corresponding increase in the effective stress
resulted in a reduction in the measured k values of GCL1
exhumed after 1 month from 1.3 3 1010 m/s at 0.5 m head
(3 kPa) to 6.0 3 1011 m/s at 1.0 m head (6 kPa) and
4.8 3 1011 m/s at 4.5 m (23 kPa), representing increases
from the initial k values by a factor of 3, 1.6 and 1.6 for
0.5, 1.0 and 4.5 m heads, respectively. This reduction in the
effect of hydration with moisture from the concrete and
exposure to wet–dry and cool–heat cycles on k values with
increasing effective stress on GCL is most likely because
of the higher reduction in the void ratio as a result of the
consolidation/compression of the bentonite under higher
stresses (Petrov and Rowe 1997). To assess the relative
effects of proximity to the greatest exposure at the joint, a
GCL1 specimen from the same test but taken away from
the joint was also tested. The w of this specimen was
similar to that for specimen at the joint location, and k
values after 1 month were 9.8 3 1011 m/s at 0.5 m head
(3 kPa), 4.5 3 1011 m/s at 1.0 m head (6 kPa), and
3.8 3 1011 m/s at 4.5 m head (23 kPa) (Table 6, Series 1
at 1 month), representing increases from the initial k values
by factors of 2.2, 1.2 and 1.3 for 0.5, 1.0 and 4.5 m heads,
respectively.
With exposure to longer term wet–dry and cool–heat
cycles, the k values for GCL1 at 0.5 m head (Table 6,
Series 1) showed a consistent but slowing rate of increase
with time from k ¼ 1.3 3 1010 m/s after 1 month to
1.8 3 1010 m/s after 3 months and 2.6 3 1010 m/s after
6 months (i.e. increase by factors of 3, 4 and 6 compared
to the virgin k value) and the exhumed w of GCL1
reduced to 88  6 and 78  2% after 3 and 6 months,
respectively (compared to 96  3% after 1 month). At
higher head/stress, the effects of the exposure conditions
in Series 1 on k were small with the k values at 6 months
being essentially the same as at 1 month. The differences
between the k values at 1, 3 and 6 months at stresses
> 6 kPa probably reflect sample variability rather than a
time effect.
When a treatment lagoon is emptied for maintenance
exposed to air and likely a series of cool–heat cycles
without wetting (assuming no rainfall) during the main-
tenance period (Series 2). When the concrete/GCL1 liner
at a joint location was exposed to this condition for 3
months, the w of the exhumed GCL was 48  1% and the
k values ranged between 7.5 3 1011 m/s under 3 kPa
effective stress to 4.8 3 1011 m/s under 23 kPa effective
stress (Table 6). Thus, the combined effect of hydration
with moisture from concrete and the exposure to air
during maintenance for 3 months with a highest air
temperature of 408C during the day with the presence of
concrete above the GCL, which acts as a thermal barrier
to the GCL, caused an increase in k values by a factor of
18 20 22 24 1.7–1.8 for the range of stress examined, which is less
than the value observed with the repeated wet–dry and
cool–heat cycles (Series 1).
Below the low water level, the GCL under the concrete
layer could be either at (Series 3, Table 6) or away from
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete 63

(Series 4, Table 6) a construction joint. Within the first

6.8 3 1011

6.4 3 1011
month, the w of GCL1 under Series 3 and 4 conditions

4.5
23

–
–
–

–
increased to 118–129% (compared to 96  3% for Series 1
with wet–dry and cool–heat cycles) then decreased to 99–
105% after 3 months (w for GCL1 in Series 1 at 3

1.1 3 1010

1.2 3 1010
months ¼ 88  6%). There was no significant difference in

1.0
12

–
–
–

–
the measured w of the GCL between the third and the 12th
month and the w was in the range of 85–105% (compared to
78  2% for Series 1). Duplicate k tests were conducted for

1.9 3 1010

1.9 3 1010
the 1 month exposure case to assess test reproducibility for
0.5

Series 3 and Series 4. Very similar results were obtained

3

–
–
–

–
from duplicate tests (Table 6) with the greatest difference in
k values being between 8.9 3 1011 and 11 3 1011 m/s at
0.5 m head (3 kPa) in Series 3. Considering the effect of
4.9 3 1011

6.7 3 1011

5.8 3 1011 exposure time for both Series 3 and 4 (Table 6), under 0.5 m
4.5
23

–
–

– head the k value increased from an initial value of

4.3 3 1011 m/s to 8.9–11 3 1011 m/s after 1 month, 1.3–
1.5 3 1010 m/s after 3 months, and 0.98–1.8 3 1010 m/s
6.0 3 1011

9.7 3 1011

7.5 3 1011

after 6 months. After 1 year, the k values were similar for

1.0
6

both Series 3 and 4 at 1.9 3 1010 m/s. Similar to the

6

–
–

Note: Initial hydraulic conductivity ¼ 4.3 3 1011, 3.8 3 1011, and 2.9 3 1011 m/s at 3, 6 and 23 kPa, respectively (average of duplicate tests)

observation for Series 1, for the same exposure period, the k

values decreased as the stress on GCL increased. After 1
2.6 3 1010

1.8 3 1010

9.8 3 1011

year being in service under Series 3 and 4 conditions, the k

0.5

values of GCL1 were 1.1–1.2 3 1010 m/s under 1.0 m head

3

–
–

(6 kPa effective stress on GCL) and 6.4–6.8 3 1011 m/s

k (m/s)

under 4.5 m head difference (23 kPa effective stress). Thus,

6.6 3 1011

4.8 3 1011
5.6 3 1011

2.6 3 1011

the results tended to the same k value at 1 year although in

general it approached that value a little faster for Series 3
4.5
23

(with joint in the concrete above the GCL) than Series 4

(with no joint in concrete above the GCL).
By comparing the k values measured for GCL1 for all
1.1 3 1010

6.4 3 1011
5.7 3 1011

3.1 3 1011

cases examined (Table 6) at the same time and stress,

1.0
3

under low confining stress (3 kPa) the most critical

exposure condition was when the GCL at joint location in
the concrete/GCL composite liner was subjected to wet–
1.8 3 1010

7.5 3 1011
1.5 3 1010

1.3 3 1010

dry and cool–heat cycles similar to these applied herein

0.5
3

(Series 1, Figure 10a). This was most likely because of the

higher effect of the thermal cycles on the bentonite
structure and therefore on the k value than when the GCL
4.8 3 1011
3.8 3 1011

4.0 3 1011
4.2 3 1011
3.9 3 1011
4.1 3 1011

was always below water. Under higher confining stresses

4.5
23

(6 or 23 kPa), there was no clear critical case.

–

The initial exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP;

molar concentration of exchangeable sodium divided by
Table 6. Hydraulic conductivity of exhumed GCL1

the summation of molar concentrations of all EC) and SI

6.0 3 1011
4.5 3 1011

7.7 3 1011
7.8 3 1011
9.7 3 1011
8.8 3 1011

of GCL1 were 67% and 25 ml/2 g, respectively. After 1

1.0
6

month of exposure, the ESP of GCL1 for all cases

1

examined decreased to 52–58% (Figure 11a) and the SI

decreased to 17–20 ml/2 g (Figure 11b). There was only a
minimal decrease in the ESP and SI values for between 1
1.3 3 1010
9.8 3 1011

1.1 3 1010
8.9 3 1011
9.2 3 1011
9.2 3 1011

and 12 months. At 12 months, the ESP and SI of all

0.5
3

GCL1 specimens were 49–52% and 14–19 ml/2 g, respec-

tively. Thus, most of the chemical change appears to have
occurred at the time of hydration of the GCL by the
Exposure time (months)

concrete water when the concrete was poured.

Stress on GCL (kPa)
Wastewater head (m)

1 - away from joint

5.2.2. Response of other GCLs – Series 4

To investigate the changes that took place during the first
1 - at joint

month of exposure, GCL2 (GCL with powdered bentonite)

Series

was tested under Series 4 conditions (hydration with

2
3

moisture from concrete for 2 weeks then synthetic waste-

Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
64 Rowe and Hosney
90 10⫺9
2 weeks of curing
80 GCL 1 - Series 4
Initial GCL 2

Hydraulic conductivity, k (m/s)

70
GCL 3
60 GCL 4
ESP (%)

50
10⫺10
40

30
GCL 1 - Series 1
20 GCL 1 - Series 2
GCL 1 - Series 3
10 GCL 1 - Series 4 2 weeks of curing
0 10⫺11
⫺1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 ⫺1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (months) Time (months)
(a)
28 Figure 12. Change in hydraulic conductivity for GCLs after
2 weeks of curing initial hydration with moisture from concrete for 2 weeks
24 Initial followed by being below 0.25 m head of wastewater without
existence of joint in the concrete above the GCL (Series 4). k
Swell index, SI (ml/2 g)

20 presented is at water head of 0.5 m above GCL and effective

stress on GCL of 3 kPa
16

12 after another 10 days, the w was 161  7% (based on four

GCL 1 - Series 1
8 wastewater above the concrete did not result in any
GCL 1 - Series 2
GCL 1 - Series 3
4 level, for the set of w between samples exhumed after
GCL 1 - Series 4
0
⫺1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Time (months)
(b)
Figure 11. Change in (a) exchangeable sodium percentage
(ESP) and (b) swell index (SI) of bentonite exhumed from
GCL1 for all cases examined (ESP was based on one test per
sample; SI was the average of triplicate tests per sample, the
standard deviation for all SI tests was < 1 ml/2 g)
water was ponded at 0.25 m above the GCL, there was no
joint in the concrete) and test cells were terminated after 0
(i.e. after 2 weeks being below concrete while it was being
cured), 0.33 (10 days), 1, 3 and 12 months. The change in
the k value for GCL2 under 0.5 m head and 3 kPa
effective stress with time is presented in Figure 12 along
with the change in k values for GCL1 tested under the
same conditions (Series 4, Table 6). The initial k of GCL2
was 3.7 3 1011 m/s. After casting the concrete above the
GCL and leaving it to harden for 2 weeks, the k of GCL2
increased by a factor of 1.6 to 6.0 3 1011 m/s. After
another 10 days, the k was essentially the same at
6.2 3 1011 m/s. Between 1 and 12 months, the k values
ranged between 5.1 and 6.8 3 1011 m/s with almost no
change with time (Figure 12). Thus, it seems that the
hydration with moisture from the wet concrete (which
contains high Ca2+ and OH-; Ca2+ concentration is typical-
ly . 200 mg/l and could be up to 2000 mg/l) is the
primary reason for the change in the GCL permeability
below poured concrete. This conclusion is supported by
the change in the w of GCL2 with time. The initial (off-
roll) w of GCL2 was 9  4%. The hydration of GCL2 by
moisture from concrete for the 2-week period of curing
leads to an increase in the w of GCL2 to 127  4% and
measurements). Longer term exposure with synthetic
subsequent significant change in w (at a 95% confidence
0.33 and 1, 3 and 12 months). Thus, most of the hydration
8 9 10 11 12 13 of the GCL took place during the 2 weeks of curing and
in this period the GCL was initially hydrated with
moisture from concrete which has high Ca2+ and OH-
concentrations.
The change in the k value of GCL3 (GCL with
powdered bentonite) with time was very similar to GCL2
(with powdered bentonite as well) (Figure 12) when tested
under Series 4 conditions, although there was a difference
in the Ł for these two GCLs. The w of exhumed GCL3
specimens was very similar to those measured for GCL2.
Of the four GCLs examined, GCL4 with the polymer-
enhanced granular Na-bentonite showed the best perform-
ance with respect to k (Figure 12). Under 0.5 m head
(3 kPa), the k of GCL4 increased from an initial value of
2.0 3 1011 m/s to 2.4 3 1011, 2.3 3 1011 and
3.2 3 1011 m/s after 1, 3 and 6 months of exposure to
Series 4 conditions, respectively. Similarly, the w of
exhumed GCL4 samples was the highest compared to the
other products with a w of 196  3%, 188  6% and
178  10% at 1, 3, and 6 months, respectively. Thus, of
the four GCL products tested, the lowest k was obtained
for GCL4 with polymer-enhanced bentonite then GCLs 2
and 3 with powdered Na-bentonite; the highest k was for
GCL1 with granular Na-bentonite. It should be noted that
the k values presented in Figure 12 represent the upper
bound for the k of the four GCLs if the lagoons were
operated with wastewater at a depth of 0.5 m and assum-
ing that the effective stress acting on the GCL is only due
to the seepage force of migrated wastewater. When the
wastewater depth in the lagoon was 4.5 m, the k value for
GCL1 after 1 year of exposure under Series 3 and 4
conditions was 6.4–6.8 3 1011 m/s whereas for GCLs 2
and 3 the k values were 4.0 3 1011 and 4.1 3 1011 m/s,
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete 65

respectively. The k value for GCL4 after 6 months of
exposure to Series 4 conditions was 1.8 3 1011 m/s.
The initial ESP for GCLs 1, 2, 3, and 4 were 67%,
70%, 70% and 78%, respectively, whereas the SI for the
four GCLs was 24–27 ml/2 g. The decrease in the ESP of
GCL4 (GCL with polymer-enhanced bentonite) was the
lowest and the slowest of the four GCLs (Figure 13a) as it
only decreased after 6 months of exposure under Series 4
conditions to 75%. This is consistent with the measured k
being the lowest for GCL4. The decrease in the ESP of
GCL2 was almost the same as GCL1 (51–53% for both
after 12 months of exposure to Series 4 conditions) despite
the significant difference in measured k values for both
GCLs. The lower k measured for GCL2 than GCL1 is
probably due to the finer (powdered) bentonite in GCL2
compared with the granular bentonite in GCL1. The
decrease in ESP of GCL3 was less than GCL2 although
the k of both products was almost the same.
The lowest measured SI was for GCL1 (because of the
reduction in ESP) with a value of 15 ml/2 g after 12
months of exposure to Series 4 conditions (Figure 13b).
This is consistent with the measured k and ESP. Under the
90
2 weeks of curing
80
70
60
ESP (%)
same conditions, the SI of the other three GCLs varied
between 18 and 20 ml/2 g (Figure 13b).
5.3. Analytical estimation for leakage through
concrete/GCL liner systems
The main function of a GCL used in a liner system is to
minimise the leakage outside the containment facility.
Leakage (Q) depends on both Ł and k (Equation 1). Based
on the results presented above, there was no direct
relationship between Ł and k. For example, of the four
tested GCLs, the lowest Ł was measured for GCL2 (with
1280 g/m2 powdered bentonite in the cover GTX) whereas
the lowest k was for GCL4 with polymer-enhanced
granular Na-bentonite. Thus, to evaluate the performance
of a GCL and compare leakage for different GCL
products, it is necessary to calculate Q using the measured
Ł and k and then use the Q as a comparison tool for the
performance of the different GCLs.
To assess the leakage that might be expected under
similar conditions using the four GCLs, the leakage
through a composite concrete/GCL liner system for a
treatment lagoon (75 m length 3 30 m width on the floor
level; water depth ¼ 1 m) was calculated using Rowe’s
(1998) equation (Equation 1). The spacing between the
3 mm width construction joint was assumed to be 5.0 m;
thus, the length of the interconnected joints between the
concrete panels (L) is 1005 m. The thickness of each GCL
(D) conservatively used in the calculations was as meas-
ured and presented in Table 1. The Ł values for each GCL

50

40 were variable with time and based on what was measured

with time for each GCL (Figures 5 and 7–9). For each
30 GCL 1 - Series 4 time interval, the k value used to calculate Q through this
20 GCL 2 interval was assumed to be the average between the k
GCL 3
10
values measured at the beginning and at the end of this
GCL 4
interval. For example, between 3 and 6 months, the k
0 value used was the average of k measured at 3 and 6
⫺1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Time (months) months under 1 m head and 6 kPa stress. The leakage
(a)
calculations were done assuming that the flow rate through
28
the concrete itself is negligible compared to the flow rate
24 through the construction joints.
2 weeks of curing The change in Q with time is presented in Figure 14a.
The lowest Q (, 2.4 3 107 m3/s) was calculated for
Swell index, SI (ml/2 g)

20
GCL2 (GCL with powdered bentonite). The other GCL
16 with powdered bentonite but with a lesser amount of
bentonite in the cover GTX (GCL3) started with Q of
12
4.6 3 106 m3/s but within the first 6 days this value
8 GCL 1 - Series 4 decreased by a factor of 5.5 to 8.4 3 107 m3/s and kept
GCL 2 decreasing with time. After 195 days, the Q for GCL3 was
4
GCL 3 almost the same as GCL2 (, 2.7 3 107 m3/s). GCL1
GCL 4
with granular Na-bentonite showed the highest Q as it is
0
⫺1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 started at 2.5 3 105 m3/s but after 6 days Q had de-
Time (months) creased by one order of magnitude to 1.8 3 106 m3/s and
(b) almost stabilised around this value. The leakage value
(6.0 3 107 m3/s) through GCL4 with polymer-enhanced
Figure 13. Change in (a) exchangeable sodium percentage
granular Na-bentonite was in the range between the Q
(ESP), and (b) swell index (SI) of all GCLs after hydration
with moisture from concrete and then the concrete and GCL values of GCL1 with granular bentonite and GCLs 2 and
were below 0.25 m of wastewater. There was no joint in the 3 with powdered bentonite.
concrete above the GCL in these tests (Series 4). ESP was The maximum acceptable flow rate through concrete
based on one test per sample; SI was the average of at least structures retaining liquids (e.g. lagoons) varies from one
triplicate tests per sample standard to another. The Australian code (AS Committee
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
66
10⫺4
AS 3735 and BS 8007
10⫺5
Leakage, Q (m3/s)
10⫺6
10⫺7
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Time (days)
(a)
10⫺4
10⫺5
Leakage, Q (m3/s)
AS 3735 and BS 8007
10⫺6
10⫺7
0 40 80 120 160 200 240
Time (days)
(b)
Figure 14. Calculated leakage for the four GCLs tested
herein (a) through concrete/GCL liner using Rowe’s
analytical solution (Rowe 1998) and (b) neglecting concrete
and considering a GCL alone (no composite action). The
maximum allowable leakage according to Australian (AS
Committee CE–022 2001), British (BS Committee CSB/60
1987) and American (ACI 1993) standards are presented as
dotted horizontal lines
CE–022 2001) and the British standards (BS Committee
CSB/60 1987) specified a drop in water level in lagoons
by 1/500 of the total depth or 10 mm, whichever is less,
over a 7 day period to be the acceptable limit. This is
equivalent to 7.44 3 106 m3/s for lagoon with dimensions
mentioned earlier and a water depth of 1.0 m. The
acceptable leakage according to the American standards
(ACI 1993) is 0.025% of water volume in 24 h
(6.5 3 106 m3/s for the assumed problem in this section).
These three limits are shown in Figure 14a. Leakage
through GCLs 2 and 3 (with powdered bentonite) and
GCL4 (with polymer-enhanced granular bentonite) was
always less than the three specified acceptable limits. On
the other hand, the leakage through GCL1 during the first
day was 2.46 3 105 m3/s, which is 3.8 times the accep-
table limit by the American standards. The average
leakage through GCL1 during the first 7 days was
9.7 3 106 m3/s, which is 1.3 times the acceptable limit
by the Australian and British standards. Thus, if a lagoon
lined with concrete/GCL1 was filled with water from
scratch and monitored for 24 h or 7 days, depending on
Rowe and Hosney
the standard requirements, it will fail based on the three
GCL 1 standards mentioned above. However, as the Ł of GCL1
GCL 2
decreased with time (Figure 5), the leakage decreased
GCL 3
significantly with time as well (Figure 14a). Thus based
GCL 4
on the change in Q with time shown in Figure 14a, the
ACI 350 concrete/GCL1 liner system would pass the leakage test if
the water was allowed to sit in the lagoon for 5 days (to
allow sufficient hydration of the bentonite at the interface)
before starting the leakage test.
The Q values presented earlier for the concrete/GCL
liner systems were calculated considering the effect of the
composite action between the concrete and the GCL. If
280 320 360 400 the composite action was ignored and the GCL assumed
to be acting as a single liner (Q is a function of the k of
GCL only following Darcy’s law), the calculated Q will be
higher than the three specified acceptable limits (Figure
14b) with the only exception being GCL4 (with polymer-
enhanced bentonite) which meet the leakage requirements
by the three specified acceptable limits in the short-term.
Thus, the design of the concrete/GCL liner systems by
ACI 350
ignoring the composite action mechanism is very con-
servative.
GCL 1
GCL 2
GCL 3 6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
GCL 4
GCLs are being used as a liner below concrete-lined
sewage treatment lagoons to create a composite liner for
280 320 360 400
minimising the leakage through construction/expansion
joints and/or cracks in the concrete. The key factors
affecting the flow through the GCL overlain by concrete
panels in lagoon applications are: (i) the concrete/GCL
interface transmissivity (Ł), and (ii) the hydraulic conduc-
tivity (k) of the GCL. A series of laboratory-scale tests
was conducted to measure the change in Ł and k with time
for four different GCLs (denoted as GCLs 1, 2, 3, and 4)
which have either standard or polymer-enhanced Na-
bentonite and granular or powdered bentonite.
The transmissivity of the concrete/GCL interface was
measured for up to 14 months for the four GCLs under-
lying 0.1 m thick poured concrete under wastewater head
of 1.0 or 2.5 m above the GCL level. To measure the
change in k, a 0.1 m thick concrete was poured above the
GCL which was then left for 2 weeks for curing before
being exposed to either: (i) wastewater under isothermal
conditions, or (ii) a series of wet–dry and/or cool–heat
cycles. GCLs were exhumed after 0 (i.e. 2 weeks of
curing), 0.33 (10 days), 1, 3, and 6 months (and for some
cases after 12 months) to measure the change in k (when
permeated with synthetic wastewater), SI and EC. The
following conclusions were reached for the specific
materials and conditions examined.
1. Under 1.0 m head (and 10 kPa stress above the
concrete), the steady-state Ł of GCL1 (GCL with
granular bentonite) was 1.1–5.3 3 1011 m2/s,
whereas under 2.5 m head (25 kPa stress), Ł of
GCL1 was one order of magnitude lower at 1.9–
2.6 3 1012 m2/s. The Ł of GCL4 (with polymer-
enhanced granular bentonite) had not reached steady
state after 366–407 days of testing. Based on the
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
available data, Ł of GCL4 was similar to, but most
likely lower than, that for GCL1. Based on outflow
rates at the time of writing, the polymer enhance-
ment of bentonite appeared to have reduced the Ł;
however, longer-term monitoring for GCL4 tests is
required to confirm this conclusion.
2. When GCL2 (GCL with powdered bentonite and
1280 g/m2 of bentonite in the cover geotextile) was
used below concrete, the measured Ł was 1.8 3
1012 m2/s under 1.0 m head and 3.5 3 1013 m2/s
under 2.5 m head. Therefore, the Ł values for this
GCL with 1280 g/m2 of powdered bentonite in the
cover geotextile were one order of magnitude lower
than those measured for GCL with granular bentonite.
3. The Ł between concrete and GCL3 (GCL with
powdered bentonite and 840 g/m2 bentonite in the
cover geotextile) was 1.3–9.5 3 1012 m2/s under
both 1.0 and 2.5 m head. In comparison to Ł values
measured for GCL2, the amount of bentonite in the
cover geotextile appears to significantly affect the Ł.
4. There was no effect for the hole size (8 or 16 mm)
on the measured Ł.
5. The highest measured k (1.9 3 1010 m/s) was for
GCL1 (GCL with granular bentonite), whereas the
lowest measured k (3.2 3 1011 m/s) was for GCL4
(GCL with polymer-enhanced granular bentonite)
under 0.5 m head and 3 kPa effective stress on the
GCL, when the concrete was continually submerged.
At 4.5 m head (23 kPa effective stress), the highest k
was 6.4–6.8 3 1011 m/s for GCL 1 and the lowest k
was 1.8 3 1011 m/s for GCL4. The k for GCLs with
powdered bentonite ranged in between k values for
GCLs 1 and 4. Compared with the measured Ł
values for the four GCL products, there was no
relationship between k and Ł (i.e. the GCL with
lowest k value was not be the product with the lowest
Ł value).
6. When GCL1 was hydrated with moisture from
concrete for 2 weeks and exposed to wet–dry and
cool–heat cycles for 6 months, the k increased from
4.3 3 1011 (virgin) to 2.6 3 1010 m/s under 0.5 m
head (3 kPa effective stress) and 4.9 3 1011 m/s
under 4.5 m head (23 kPa). Thus, under 0.5 m head
and 3 kPa stress, the k of the GCL below concrete
and exposed to wet–dry cycles was 1.2–2.6 times the
k of the GCL exposed to wastewater under
isothermal conditions. Under higher head (> 1.0 m)
and stress (> 6 kPa), the k was essentially the same
for the GCL exposed to wastewater under either
isothermal conditions or in wet–dry cycles.
7. The increase in k for GCLs serving below cast-in-
place concrete was primarily due to their hydration
with moisture from the wet concrete just after
pouring. The effect of the different examined
exposure conditions on the measured k and chemical
characteristics of the GCLs was small after up to 12
months of testing.
8. Analytical calculation for the leakage through the
concrete/GCL liner systems indicated that if allowed
a few days to hydrate after filling, the flow rates for
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
67
all GCLs could be lower than the allowable limits
specified by the Australian, British, and American
standards for a hypothetical case examined.
9. Design of the concrete/liner systems ignoring the
composite action mechanism is very conservative,
and the calculated leakage through the GCL most
likely will exceed the allowable limits specified by
the Australian, British, and American standards.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported in this paper is supported by the
NSW Department of Commerce and the Natural Sciences
and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Grant
1007). The support of the Killam Trust in the form of a
Killam Fellowship to R.K.R. is greatly appreciated. The
value of discussion with A. Fam (Civil Engineering
Department, Queen’s University) is gratefully acknow-
ledged. The assistance of the NSW Department of
Commerce, Terrafix Geosynthetics Inc., Terrafix Environ-
mental Technologies Inc., TAG Environmental Inc. (who
supplied GCL1 and GCL4), Geofabrics Australia (who
provided GCL2), and NAUE GmbH (who provided GCL3)
is also gratefully acknowledged. The experimental design,
interpretation of the data, and any views expressed are the
sole responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the views of these who provided financial support
or GCLs for testing.
NOTATION
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
b
semi-width of the GMB wrinkle or the
construction joints between adjacent concrete
panels (m)
D thickness of the GCL (m)
hd head loss across the composite liner (m)
H final water head above the GCL (m)
Ho initial water head above the GCL (m)
Havg average water head above the GCL (m)
k hydraulic conductivity of the GCL (m/s)
L length of the GMB wrinkle or the interconnected
construction joints between the concrete
panels (m)
Q flow rate (Q ¼ volume/time) (m3/s)
R radius of the GCL sample (m)
Ro hole radius (m)
t time taken for water to drop from Ho to H (s)
a cross-sectional area of the inflow tank (m3)
Ł interface transmissivity (m2/s)
REFERENCES
ACI (American Concrete Institute) (1993). ACI 350. 1R–93/AWWA 400–
93: Testing Reinforced Concrete Structures for Watertightness,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, MI, USA.
ACI (2001). ACI 224. 3R–95: Design and Construction of Joints for
Concrete Streets. See http://plumconstructioninc.com/resources/
jointdesign.pdf (accessed 14/05/2013).
ACPA (American Concrete Pavement Association) (1992). Joints in
68
Concrete Construction. See http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/2173108/
199513267/name/2243r_95.pdf (accessed 14/05/2013).
Alonso, C., Castellote, M., Llorente, I. & Andrade, C. (2006). Ground
water leaching resistance of high and ultra high performance
concretes in relation to the testing convection regime. Cement and
Concrete Research, 36, No. 9, 1583–1594.
AS Committee CE–022 (2001). AS 3735: Concrete Structures for
Retaining Liquids, Standards Australia International Ltd, Sydney,
NSW, Australia.
ASTM C143/C143M–10a. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-
Cement Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
ASTM D5261–92. Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit
Area of Geotextiles, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA,
USA.
ASTM D5993–99. Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit of
Geosynthetic Clay Liners, ASTM International, West Conshohock-
en, PA, USA.
ASTM D5084–03. Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Hydraulic
Conductivity of Saturated Porous Materials Using a Flexible Wall
Permeameter. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D5890–06 Standard Test Method for Swell Index of Clay Mineral
Component of Geosynthetic Clay Liners. ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D4643–08. Standard Test Method for Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil by Microwave Oven Heating. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D7503–10. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Exchange-
able Complex and Cation Exchange Capacity of Inorganic Fine-
Grained Soils. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
ASTM D5199–11. Standard Test Method for Measuring the Nominal
Thickness of Geosynthetics, ASTM International, West Conshohock-
en, PA, USA.
Barroso, M., Touze-Foltz, N., von Maubeuge, K. & Pierson, P. (2006).
Laboratory investigation of flow rate through composite liners
consisting of a geomembrane, a GCL and a soil liner. Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 24, No. 3, 139–155.
Barroso, M., Touze-Foltz, N. & von Maubeuge, K. (2008). Influence of
the textured structure of geomembranes on the flow rate through
geomembrane-GCL composite liners. Proceedings of the 4th
European Geosynthetics Conference, EuroGeo4, Edinburgh, UK,
Paper No. 86 (CD-ROM).
Barroso, M. C. P., Lopes, M. G. D. A. & Bergamini, G. (2010). Effect of
the waste pressure on fluid migration through geomembrane
defects. Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Guaruja, Brazil, pp. 959–962.
Benson, C. H., Jo, H. Y. & Abichou, T. (2004). Forensic analysis of
excessive leakage from lagoons lined with a composite GCL.
Geosynthetics International, 11, No. 3, 242–252.
Benson, C. H., Kucukkirca, I. E. & Scalia, J. (2010a). Properties of
geosynthetics exhumed from a final cover at a solid waste landfill.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28, No. 6, 536–546.
Benson, C. H., Ören, A. H. & Gates, W. P. (2010b). Hydraulic
conductivity of two geosynthetic clay liners permeated with a
hyperalkaline solution. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28, No. 2,
206–218.
Benson, C., Albright, W., Fratta, D., Tinjum, J., Kucukkirca, E., Lee, S.,
Scalia, J., Schlicht, P. & Wang, X. (2011). Engineered Covers for
Waste Containment: Changes in Engineering Properties and
Implications for Long-term Performance Assessment, Office of
Research, US Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC,
USA, NUREG/CR-7028.
Bouazza, A., Vangpaisal, T. & Jefferis, S. (2006). Effect of wet-dry
cycles and cation exchange on gas permeability of geosynthetic clay
liners. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering,
132, No. 8, 1011–1018.
Bouazza, A., Jefferis, S. & Vangpaisal, T. (2007). Investigation of the
effects and degree of calcium exchange on the Atterberg limits and
swelling of geosynthetic clay liners when subjected to wet-dry
cycles. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 25, No. 3, 170–185.
BS Committee CSB/60 (1987). BS 8007: Design of Concrete Structures
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
Rowe and Hosney
for Retaining Aqueous Liquids, British Standards Institution,
London, UK.
Cartaud, F., Touze-Foltz, N. & Duval, Y. (2005). Experimental investigation
of the influence of a geotextile beneath the geomembrane in a
composite liner on the leakage through a hole in the geomembrane.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 23, No. 2, 117–143.
Chappel, M. J., Brachman, R. W. I., Take, W. A. & Rowe, R. K. (2012a).
Large-scale quantification of wrinkles in a smooth, black, HDPE
geomembrane. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, 138, No. 6, 671–679.
Chappel, M. J., Rowe, R. K., Brachman, R. W. I. & Take, W. A. (2012b).
A comparison of geomembrane wrinkles for nine field cases.
Geosynthetics International, 19, No. 6, 453–469.
Daniel, D. E., Bowders, J. J. Jr & Gilbert, R. B. (1997). Laboratory
hydraulic conductivity testing of GCLs in flexible-wall permea-
meters. Testing and Acceptance Criteria for Geosynthetic Clay
liners, Well, L. W., Editor, ASTM, West Conshohocken, PA, USA,
pp. 208–226, ASTM STP 1308.
Dickinson, S., Brachman, R. & Rowe, R. K. (2010). Thickness and
hydraulic performance of geosynthetic clay liners overlying a
geonet. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 136, No. 4, 552–561.
Egloffstein, T. A. (2001). Natural bentonite-influence of the ion exchange
and partial desiccation on permeability and self-healing capacity of
bentonite used in GCLs. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 19, No. 7,
427–444.
El-Zein, A., McCarroll, I. & Touze-Foltz, N. (2012). Three-dimensional
finite-element analyses of seepage and contaminant transport
through composite geosynthetics clay liners with multiple defects.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 33, No. 8, 34–42.
Estornell, P. & Daniel, D. (1992). Hydraulic conductivity of three
geosynthetic clay liners. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 18,
No. 10, 1592–1606.
FCM (Federation of Canadian Municipalities) (2004). Optimization of
Lagoon Operation – a Best Practice by the National Guide to
Sustainable Municipal Infrastructure. Issue No. 1.0. See http://
www.fcm.ca/Documents/reports/Infraguide/Optimization_of_Lagoon_
Operations_EN.pdf (accessed 14/05/2013).
Gleason, M. H., Daniel, D. E. & Eykholt, G. R. (1997). Calcium and
sodium bentonite for hydraulic containment applications. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123, No. 5, 438–
445.
Giroud, J. P. (1997). Equations for calculating the rate of liquid migration
through composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geosyn-
thetics International, 4, No. 3–4, 335–348.
Giroud, J. P. & Bonaparte, R. (1989). Leakage through liners constructed
with geomembranes - Part II: Composite liners. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 8, No. 2, 71–111.
Grady, L., Daigger, G. & Lim, H. (1999). Biological Wastewater
Treatment, 2nd edition, Marcel Dekker Inc, New York, NY, USA.
Gu, B. X., Minc, L. D. & Ewing, R. C. (2001). Temperature effects on
the radiation stability and ion exchange capacity of smectites.
Journal of Nuclear Materials, 297, No. 3, 345–354.
Harpur, W. A., Wilson-Fahmy, R. F. & Koerner, R. M. (1993).
Evaluation of the contact between geosynthetic clay liners and
geomembranes in terms of transmissivity. Proceedings of the 7th
Annual GRI Seminar, Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, USA,
pp. 138–149.
Hosney, M. S. & Rowe, R. K. (2013). Changes in geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL) properties after 2 years in a cover over arsenic-rich tailings.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 50, No. 3, 326–342.
Jo, H. Y., Katsumi, T., Benson, C. H. & Edil, T. B. (2001). Hydraulic
conductivity and swelling of nonprehydrated GCLs permeated with
single-species salt solutions. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvir-
onmental Engineering, 127, No. 7, 557–567.
Jo, H. Y., Benson, C. H., Shackelford, C. D., Lee, J. & Edil, T. B. (2005).
Long-term hydraulic conductivity of a geosynthetic clay liner
permeated with inorganic salt solutions. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, No. 4, 405–417.
Koerner, G. R. & Koerner, R. M. (2002). Geomembrane leakage arising
from broken needles with GCLs. Proceedings of the International
Interface transmissivity and hydraulic conductivity of GCLs below poured concrete
Symposium on Geosynthetic Clay Barriers, Nuremberg, Germany,
pp. 209–217.
Kuhl, D. & Meschke, C. (2001). A comparison of coupled chemo-
mechanical damage models of concrete using phenomenological
chemistry and reaction kinetics. Proceedings of the 1st MIT
Conference on Computational Fluid and Solid Mechanics,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA, 12–
15 June, pp. 1278–1280.
Lee, J. & Shackelford, C. D. (2005). Impact of bentonite quality on
hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131, No. 1, 64–77.
Lin, L. & Benson, C. (2000). Effect of wet-dry cycling on swelling and
hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners. Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 126, No. 1, 40–49.
Lin, W., Cheng, A., Huang, R., Chen, C. & Zhou, X. (2011). Effect of
calcium leaching on the properties of cement-based composites.
Journal of Wuhan University of Technology-Material Science, 26,
No. 5, 900–997.
Lu, B. W., Lu, J. D. & Huang, W. H. (2007). Leaching behavior of
concrete barrier of low-level radwaste disposal site. Monthly
Journal of Taipower’s Engineering, 710, 11–22.
Mendes, M. J. A., Touze-Foltz, N., Palmeira, E. M. & Pierson, P. (2010a).
Influence of structural and material properties of GCLs on interface
flow in composite liners due to geomembrane defects. Geosyn-
thetics International, 17, No. 1, 34–47.
Mendes, M. J. A., Touze-Foltz, N., Palmeira, E. M. & Pierson, P.
(2010b). Influence of the type of bentonite of GCLs on the
transmissivity at GCL-geomembrane interfaces. The 9th Interna-
tional Conference on Geosynthetics, Brazil, pp. 919–922.
Mindess, S. & Young, J. F. (1981). Concrete, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ, USA.
Nawy, E. G. (2008). Concrete Construction Engineering Handbook, CRC
Press, Taylor and Francis, Boca Raton, FL, USA.
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) (2003). Document no.
CODE 359. Waste Treatment Lagoon. See http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/
Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs143_026002.pdf (accessed 14/05/
2013).
NRCS (Natural Resources Conservation Service) (2007). Document no.
CODE 313. Waste Storage Facility. See http://efotg.sc.egov.usda.
gov/references/public/AL/tg313.pdf (accessed 14/05/2013).
Neville, A. M. (2006). Properties of Concrete, 4th edition, Prentice Hall/
Pearson Education, Essex, UK and New York, NY, USA.
Petrov, R. J. & Rowe, R. K. (1997). Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)-
chemical compatibility by hydraulic conductivity: testing and
factors impacting its performance. Canadian Geotechnical Journal,
34, No. 6, 863–885.
Petrov, R. J., Rowe, R. K. & Quigley, R. M. (1997a). Comparison of
laboratory-measured GCL hydraulic conductivity based on three
permeameter types. Geotechnical Testing Journal, 20, No. 1, 49–62.
Petrov, R. J., Rowe, R. K. & Quigley, R. M. (1997b). Selected factors
influencing GCL hydraulic conductivity. Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123, No. 8, 683–695.
Rowe, R. K. (1998). Geosynthetics and the minimization of contaminant
migration through barrier systems beneath solid waste. Proceedings
of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Atlanta, IFAI,
St Paul. MN, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 27–103.
Rowe, R. K. (2005). Long-term performance of contaminant barrier
systems. The 45th Rankine Lecture. Géotechnique, 55, No. 9, 631–
678.
Rowe, R. K. (2012). Short-and long-term leakage through composite
liners. The 7th Arthur Casagrande Lecture. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 49, No. 2, 141–169.
Rowe, R. K. & Abdelatty, K. (2012a). Leakage and contaminant transport
through a single hole in the geomembrane component of a
composite liner. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 139, No. 3, 357–366.
Rowe, R. K. & Abdelatty, K. (2012b). Effect of a calcium-rich soil on
The Editor welcomes discussion on all papers published in Geosynthetics International. Please email your contribution to
discussion@geosynthetics-international.com by 15 August 2015.
Geosynthetics International, 2015, 22, No. 1
69
the performance of an overlying GCL. Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 138, No. 4, 423–431.
Rowe, R. K. & Orsini, C. (2003). Effect of GCL and subgrade type on
internal erosion in GCLs under high gradients. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 21, No. 1, 1–24.
Rowe, R. K., Quigley, R. M., Brachman, R. W. I. & Booker, J. R. (2004).
Barrier Systems for Waste Disposal Facilities, E. & F. Spon,
London, UK.
Rowe, R. K., Chappel, M. J., Brachman, R. W. I. & Take, W. A. (2012).
Field monitoring of geomembrane wrinkles at a composite liner test
site. Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 49, No. 10, 1196–1211.
Ryu, J. S., Otsuki, N. & Minagawa, H. (2002). Long-term forecast of Ca
leaching from mortar and associated degeneration. Cement and
Concrete Research, 32, No. 10, 1539–1544.
Saidi, F., Touze-Foltz, N. & Goblet, P. (2008). Numerical modelling of
advective flow through composite liners in case of two interacting
adjacent square defects in the geomembrane. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 26, No. 2, 196–204.
Saito, H. & Deguchi, A. (2000). Leaching tests on different mortars using
accelerated electrochemical method. Cement and Concrete Re-
search, 30, No. 11, 1815–1825.
Scalia, J. & Benson, C. (2010). Preferential flow in geosynthetic clay
liners exhumed from final covers with composite barriers. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 47, No. 10, 1101–1111.
Scalia, J. & Benson, C. (2011). Hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic
clay liners exhumed from landfill final covers with composite
barriers. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineer-
ing, 137, No. 1, 1–13.
Scalia, J., Benson, C., Edil, T., Bohnhoff, G. & Shackelford, C. (2011).
Geosynthetic clay liners containing bentonite polymer nanocompo-
site. GeoFrontiers 2011 Advances in Geotechnical Engineering,
Han, J. & Alazamora, D., Editors, ASCE, Reston, VA, USA, pp.
2001–2009, GSP No. 211.
Shackelford, C. D. (1994). Waste-soil interactions that alter hydraulic
conductivity. Hydraulic Conductivity and Waste Contaminant
Transport in Soil, Daniel, D. E. & Trautwein, S. J., Editors, ASTM,
West Conshohocken, PA, USA, pp. 111–168, ASTM STP 1142.
Shackelford, C. D., Benson, C. H., Katsumi, T., Edil, T. B. & Lin, L.
(2000). Evaluation of the hydraulic conductivity of GCLs permeated
with non-standard liquids. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 18, No.
2–4, 133–161.
Shackelford, C., Sevick, G. & Eykholt, G. (2010). Hydraulic conductivity
of geosynthetic clay liners to tailings impoundment solutions.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 28, No. 2, 149–162.
Shan, H. & Lai, Y. (2002). Effect of hydrating liquid on the hydraulic
properties of geosynthetic clay liners. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 20, No. 1, 19–38.
Take, W. A., Chappel, M. J., Brachman, R. W. I. & Rowe, R. K. (2007).
Quantifying geomembrane wrinkles using aerial photography and
digital image processing. Geosynthetics International, 14, No. 4,
219–227.
Touze-Foltz, N., Barroso, M. & Cartaud, F. (2006). Experimental
investigation of flow rates through composite liners at the metric
scale. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on
Geosynthetics (8ICG), Kuwano, J. & Koseki, J., Editors, IOS Press,
Amsterdam, the Netherlands, pp. 305–308.
Tsivilis, S., Tsantilas, J., Kakali, G., Chaniotakis, E. & Sakellariou, A.
(2003). The permeability of Portland limestone cement concrete.
Cement and Concrete Research, 33, No. 9, 1465–1471.
UNDTCD (United Nations Department of Technical Cooperation &
Development) (1985). The Use of Non-conventional Water
Resources in Developing Countries, United Nations, New York, NY,
USA, United Nations Natural Resources/Water Series No. 14.
USEPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (2004).
Document no. EPA 832-R-04–001. Primer for Municipal Waste
Water Treatment Systems. See http://www.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/
primer.pdf (accessed 14/05/2013).