Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/geotexmem

Shear strength of geosynthetic composite systems for design of landfill

liner and cover slopes
Hisham T. Eid*
Qatar University, College of Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, P.O. Box 2713, Doha, Qatar

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Torsional ring shear tests were performed on composite specimens that simulate the field alignment of
Received 16 February 2010 municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill liner and cover system components. Simultaneous shearing was
Received in revised form provided to each test specimen without forcing failure to occur through a pre-determined plane.
25 October 2010
Composite liner specimens consisted of a textured geomembrane (GM) underlain by a needle-punched
Accepted 4 November 2010
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) which in turn underlain by a compacted silty clay. Hydrated specimens were
Available online 4 December 2010
sheared at eleven different normal stress levels. Test results revealed that shear strength of the composite
liner system can be controlled by different failure modes depending on the magnitude of normal stress and
Keywords:
Composite liner system
the comparative values of the GCL interface and internal shear strength. Failure following these modes may
Geosynthetic clay liner result in a bilinear or trilinear peak strength envelope and a corresponding stepped residual strength
Interface shear strength envelope. Composite cover specimens that comprised textured GM placed on unreinforced smooth GM-
Landfill slopes backed GCL resting on compacted sand were sheared at five different GCL hydration conditions and
Progressive failure a normal stress that is usually imposed on MSW landfill cover geosynthetic components. Test results
Ring shear test showed that increasing the GCL hydration moves the shearing plane from the GCL smooth GM backing/
sand interface to that of the textured GM/hydrated bentonite. Effects of these interactive shear strength
behaviors of composite liner and cover system components on the possibility of developing progressive
failure in landfill slopes were discussed. Recommendations for designing landfill geosynthetic-lined slopes
were subsequently given. Three-dimensional stability analysis of well-documented case history of failed
composite system slope was presented to support the introduced results and recommendations.
Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction liner systems are typically covered by a leachate collection system

Disposal of municipal solid waste (MSW) in engineered landfills
has become a common practice. Landfills must be designed and
constructed in a way preventing contamination of the surrounding
environment. As a result, specially designed liner and cover
composite systems should be placed at the base of landfill and over
the waste top lift, respectively. Each of these systems usually
comprises a multiple hydraulic barrier consists of geomembrane
(GM) and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) sheets. Two types of GCL are
commonly used in landfill geosynthetic composite systems: (i)
unreinforced GCL that comprises a thin layer of bentonite adhered
to a high density polyethylene (HDPE) GM; and (ii) reinforced GCL
that comprises geotextile-encapsulated bentonite that is stitch-
bonded or needle-punched to connect the backing geotextiles. As
shown in Fig. 1, the hydraulic barriers in MSW landfill composite
* Tel.: þ974 4403 4177; fax: þ974 4403 4172.
E-mail address: heid@qu.edu.qa.
and underlain by low permeability soil. In cover systems, barriers
are usually placed over compacted sand or gravel with embedded
pipes for gas venting and overlain by sand as a drainage layer
topped by vegetated soil.
While the hydraulic barriers are instrumental in preventing the
infiltration of moisture or leachate to or from the waste, the
comprised liner and cover systems must withstand the possibly
applied stresses without being affected in its function during and
after construction phase. A careful estimation of these stresses as
well as strengths of liner and cover systems serves as a basis for safe
landfill construction, operation, and closure. Shear stresses that are
developed due to placing the geosynthetic composite systems on
landfill sloped base and surfaces are of a major concern.
Since the slope failure of hazardous waste landfill unit at Ket-
tleman Hills, California (Mitchell et al., 1990; Seed et al., 1990; Byrne
et al., 1992), a significant number of investigations were presented
on the interface and internal shear strength behavior of the
composite system components (e.g. Swan et al., 1991; Gilbert and
Bryne, 1996; Stark et al., 1996; Esterhuizen et al., 2001; Fox and

0266-1144/$ e see front matter Ó 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.geotexmem.2010.11.005
336 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344

shear behavior rather than determining the specific shear strength

values required for the design of landfill liner or cover systems.

d Soil 2. Specimen preparation and testing procedure

Vegetate
System
e Soil or rced Specimens that represent typical MSW landfill liner and cover
Drainag Unreinfoments
brane e
Bentonit brane CGL E
le geosynthetic composite systems were tested using a modified
Geomem
Textured L Geomem Bromhead torsional ring shear apparatus. The apparatus utilizes an
rced CG
Unreinfo
er annular specimen with an inside and outside diameter of 40 and
ting Lay
Gas Ven mbedd. Pipes) 100 mm, respectively (Eid and Stark, 1997). For each test, a 1.5 mm
it h E
(Sand w (60 mil) thick textured HDPE GM was glued to the top platen. The
Waste
textured GM was manufactured by Gundle Lining Systems, Inc. of
Houston, USA. The specimen container that could accommodate
a 10-mm-deep specimen was filled with compacted soil. Drainage is
Cover System
provided by annular bronze porous stone secured to the bottom of
specimen container. After soil compaction, the specimen container
Solid Waste is installed in the ring shear apparatus.
Liner System To assemble a representative composite specimen, the soil
surface was overlain by an annular GCL specimen which in turn
overlain by the top platen with a secured textured GM (Fig. 2). The
bentonite typically used in this GCL is Wyoming bentonite with
a liquid limit and plasticity index of 300e450 and 260e390,
respectively (Mesri, 1969; Mesri and Olson, 1970). Aligned marks
Wa
Lea ste were put on the textured GM, the GCL woven and nonwoven geo-
cha textiles, and the bottom platen before shearing the composite liner
t
eC
Tex olle
tur ctio specimens, as well as on the textured GM, the GCL GM backing, and
ed nS
Re Ge
om yst
em
the bottom platen before shearing the composite cover specimens.
i nf em
orc
ed bra Shifting between such marks during and after shearing helped in
G ne
(Lo
w P Subg
CL locating the shear failure surfaces.
erm rade All specimens were sheared at a displacement rate of 0.015 mm/
eab
ilit W min. Based on the data presented by Eid et al. (1999), using such
yS Be oven
oil)
No ntoni Geot
nw te ext
ove ile
nG
eot
ext
il e GCReinf
L E orc
lem ed
ent
s

Fig. 1. Typical components of geosynthetic composite liner and cover systems for
municipal solid waste landfills. Top
Platen
Stark, 2004; Zornberg et al., 2005; Bergado et al., 2006; Müller
et al., 2008; McCartney et al., 2009). Several laboratory testing
techniques have been introduced to study the peak and post-peak
Textured
shear strength behavior of these components. Most of these tech- Geomembrane
niques utilize either the standard or large direct shear box in which
shear failure is forced e regardless of the normal stress level e to Unreinforced GCL Reinforced GCL
occur through a single interface or surface that is placed along the (For Cover Spec.) (For Liner Spec.)

gap between the upper and lower halves. Similarly, torsional ring GCL
shear device is frequently used to study geosynthetics strength
behavior through shearing only two components against each Sand Silty Clay
other or a GCL specimen internally. (For Cover Spec.) (For Liner Spec.)
A study of interactive shear strength behavior of landfill liner Compacted
system components as well as that of cover system components is Soil
presented in this paper. This was done using a laboratory testing set
up that provides simultaneous shearing for specimens of these
components without forcing the shear failure to occur through Serrated
a pre-determined plane. The effects of this behavior at different Porous Stone
normal stress levels and hydration conditions on the stability
analyses and the possibility of progressive failure of landfill slopes
are discussed. A three-dimensional (3D) analysis of well-docu-
mented case history of a failed geosynthetic composite cover slope Bottom
is presented to confirm the study results. The interfaces and Platen
internal shear strengths of liner and cover systems components are
project specific and product dependent. Therefore, the discussion Fig. 2. Schematic of torsional ring shear specimen container and composite specimens
of the test results and their applications focused on analyzing the used in testing.
 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
displacement rate minimizes the effects of rapid tearing or pulling-
out of the reinforcement fibers and development of positive excess
pore-water pressures on the measured internal peak shear
strength of reinforced GCL. For hydrated unreinforced GCL speci-
mens sheared against textured GM, a slower displacement rate
only appears to influence the measured peak interface strength
(Eid and Stark, 1997). This influence can be approximately quanti-
fied by using a reduction of 13 percent per log cycle of shear rate. All
of the other interfaces comprised in the composite specimens of
the current study encompass soils with plasticity that is much less
than that of the GCL hydrated bentonite. As a result, the utilized rate
should be slow enough to avoid any possible rate effect on the
measured peak shear strengths of such interfaces. This rate is
slower than the standard rate of 1.0 mm/min recommended in the
ASTM D 5321 (2002), and more closely simulates field condition.
While relatively fast for developing drained conditions as expected
in the field, the standard rate is commonly used in shearing
hydrated GCL internally as well as hydrated CGL/GM interfaces
because of time and cost considerations (Fox and Stark, 2004).
It is a common practice to investigate the shear strength behavior
of geosynthetic materials using a large direct shear box with
a specimen size of 0.3  0.3 m (ASTM D 5321, 2002; ASTM D 6243,
2008; EN ISO 12957-1, 2005). However, many researchers (e.g.
Takasumi et al., 1991; Gilbert et al.,1997; Koerner et al.,1998) showed
that using smaller specimens yields acceptable results. The small
(0.06  0.06 m) direct shear box has been also utilized for geo-
synthetic testing (e.g., Daniel and Shan, 1992; Basudhar, 2010). The
area of the ring shear specimens used in the present research is
almost twice that of the small direct shear box. In addition, the
interactive shear strength behavior that would be controlled by the
comparative e not the absolute e values of the interface and internal
strength of the composite specimen components should minimize
the specimen size effect e if any e on the results of this study.
The torsional ring shear apparatus has an advantage over the
small and large direct shear boxes of applying an unlimited contin-
uous-shear displacement in one direction along a same and constant
cross-sectional area to achieve a residual strength condition. In
addition, the ring shear apparatus using the testing set up described
above does not force the shear failure to occur through a pre-deter-
mined plane. The composite specimens utilized in this research were
allowed to fail along the textured GM/GCL interface or the soil/GCL
interface or through shearing the GCL internally. This simultaneous
shearing of composite specimens that contain several components
affected by same testing conditions helps in simulating the field
condition more than testing shear strength of individual interfaces.
The measured peak friction angles of geosynthetics interfaces
can be affected by the direction of shear and uniformity of strain
provided by the testing apparatus. In spite of having limitations
showed by several researchers (e.g., Fox and Kim, 2008; Palmeira,
2009), the large direct shear apparatus imposes shear in one
direction and a uniform strain across the interface surface which
better simulates the critical field downslope shearing. On the other
hand, the torsional ring shear provides rotational shearing and
tangential horizontal deformation that varies with the radius.
However, data presented by Stark and Eid (1996, 1997) for different
geosynthetic interfaces shows that using the large direct shear
apparatus yields peak friction angles that are greater than those
measured by torsional ring shear device e identical to that utilized
in the present research e by less than 1.5 . The low magnitude of
such difference and its applicability on all of the composite spec-
imen interfaces simultaneously sheared by the ring shear device
validate its use in investigating the interactive shear strength
behavior of the landfill liner and cover systems.
It should be noted that testing repeatability and effect of sample
variability were not considered in this study mainly because all of
337
the tested GCLs and textured GM were taken from the same lot. As
a result, good repeatability could have been obtained for duplicate
tests on GCLs and GMs (McCartney et al., 2009). In addition, the
small size of soil specimens utilized in this research helped in full
control over their compaction uniformity and consistency. Focusing
the research on understanding the interactive shear strength
behavior of composite systems rather than determining the abso-
lute shear strength values also minimized the effect of any sample
variability on the analysis of testing results.
2.1. Composite liner specimens
For testing specimens that simulate typical composite liner
systems, a soil with liquid limit, plasticity index, and clay-size
fraction (percentage of weight finer than 0.002 mm) of 39, 20, and
42%, respectively was utilized. The soil is classified as silty clay with
medium plasticity (CL) according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. Soils of these type and index properties exhibit the low
permeability and shrinkage potential, reasonable shear strength,
and workability that are needed for MSW landfill liners (Daniel and
Wu, 1993). Soil was mixed to its optimum moisture content of 18.3%
using distilled water and then compacted into the ring shear spec-
imen container using a Harvard miniature compactor. Maximum
dry-unit weight (16.8 kN/m3) was obtained by compacting the
appropriate weight of moist soil into the specimen container.
The GCL used in comprising the composite liner specimens was
manufactured by the National Seal Company, Illinois, USA, and is
referred to as Bentofix. The GCL consisted of powder bentonite
between a woven and nonwoven geotextiles that are needle-
punched together to provide internal reinforcement. The edges of
the annular GCL specimens were moistened using a spry bottle to
reduce bentonite loss during specimen preparation and placement.
Woven geotextile side of the GCL mobilizes lower peak shear
strength than that of the nonwoven geotextile side when both
sheared against textured GM (Triplett and Fox, 2001). In addition,
soil/geosynthetic interface shear strength directly proportioned to
the soil friction angle (Koerner, 1994). As a result, interfaces of
nonwoven geotextiles with textured GM and granular soil and
those of textured GM with granular soils placed for leachate
collection that appears in some designs of landfill liner systems
were not utilized in the test specimens of this research. Test spec-
imens only encompassed interfaces of woven geotextile/textured
GM and nonwoven geotextile/low plasticity soil that mobilize
relatively low shear strength and consequently influence the
interactive shear strength behavior of the composite liner systems.
Ring shear tests were conducted at normal stresses of 17, 25, 50,
75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 350, and 400 kPa to simulate a landfill
liner system under various loading conditions. For each test, the
composite specimen was hydrated under a normal stress of 17 kPa.
Hydration was assumed to be complete by the end of primary swell
as defined by ASTM D 4546 (2003). Hydration at a normal stress of
17 kPa allows for more bentonite hydration before shearing which
simulates a critical field condition in regards to slope stability. After
hydration was complete, the specimen was loaded to the desired
shearing normal stress in small increments to ensure little, if any,
extrusion of bentonite. Shearing of the specimen was conducted
after consolidation and was continued until the residual shear
strength was reached.
2.2. Composite cover specimens
To simulate soils that are usually used in MSW landfill cover
systems, sand with a mean grain size of 0.21 mm, a coefficient of
uniformity of 2.3 and a coefficient of curvature of 0.9 was utilized in
composing the composite cover specimens. It is classified as poorly
338
graded uniform sand (SP) according to the Unified Soil Classification
System. The sand maximum and minimum dry-unit weights were
measured to be 17.5 kN/m3, and 15.6 kN/m3, respectively. Harvard
miniature compactor was used to place the sand into the ring shear
specimen container at a relative density of 0.71. It should be noted
that shearing the sand in its loosest state yielded an approximately
linear failure envelope and a friction angle of 35 that can be
considered as the sand critical state friction angle (Eid et al., 2009).
The GCL used in comprising the composite cover specimens was
manufactured by Gundle Lining Systems, Inc., and consists of a 3.5-
mm-thick layer of bentonite attached to a smooth HDPE GM.
Annular specimens of this GM-backed GCL were placed on the
compacted sand with the unreinforced bentonite facing the top
platen (loading platen) to form a GM-backed GCL/textured GM
interface (Fig. 2). The test apparatus was assembled and the spec-
imen was then loaded in increments to a normal stress of 17 kPa to
simulate MSW landfill cover system pressures. The interface of
textured GM with granular soil usually placed for drainage purpose
(Fig. 1) was not represented in the test specimens because it would
naturally mobilizes shear strength that is greater than that of the
utilized smooth GM/sand interface.
The composite cover specimens were tested at five different
hydration conditions represented by bentonite water contents of
11, 34, 52, 73, and 158%. The driest condition corresponds to the as-
received water content. A water content of 34% was achieved by
allowing the GCL specimen to hydrate in a moist room. For the
higher hydrated conditions, the loaded composite specimen was
inundated for 5, 10, and 60 min with distilled water and allowed to
hydrate until the end of primary swell or vertical deformation
ceased. GCL bentonite water contents were measured at the end of
shearing period. Specimens were sheared at normal stress of 17 kPa
until the residual strength was reached.
3. Liner system testing results and analysis
3.1. Failure modes
Visual inspection of test specimens during and after completion
of each test showed that the location of the shear failure surface
depends on the magnitude of the applied normal stress. Failure
occurred along the soil/GCL nonwoven geotextile side interface at
normal stresses of 17, 25, 50, and 75 kPa. The shear failure surface
moved to the textured GM/GCL woven geotextile side interface at
normal stresses of 100, 150, 200, and 250 kPa. For specimens
sheared at normal stress of 300 kPa or higher, failure occurred
through shearing the GCL internally (Fig. 3). The inspection also
showed that the strain or displacement measured during testing
each composite liner specimen is mainly attributed to shearing
150
Failure Mode
Shear strength (kPa)
Soil/GCL Interface
GM/GCL Interface
100 GCL Internal Shear
50
0
0 50
Fig. 4. Peak and residual shear strength envelopes for the composite liner specimens.
H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
Failure Normal
Mode Stress (kPa)
Textured GM
GM/GCL 100, 150, 200 and 250
Reinf. Woven Geotex.
Bentonite GCL (internal) 300, 350 and 400
GCL Nonwoven Geotex.
GCL/Soil 17, 25, 50 and 75
Silty Clay
Fig. 3. Applied normal stresses and the associated shear failure surfaces in the tested
composite liner specimens.
along the critical, i.e., failure surface without significant contribu-
tion from the other interfaces or components.
Extrusion of the GCL hydrated bentonite through the sur-
rounded geotextiles was noticed on the failure interfaces. The
quantity of extruded bentonite increased with increasing normal
stress and was generally more for woven geotextile interfaces than
for nonwoven geotextile interfaces. Similar extrusion on textured
GM/GCL woven geotextile side interface was observed by Stark and
Eid (1996), Gilbert et al. (1996), Vukelic et al. (2008), and Chen et al.
(2010) in laboratory testing, and by Daniel et al. (1998) in field
testing. Bentonite extrusion on smooth and textured GM/GCL
woven and nonwoven geotextile sides interfaces was also reported
by Triplett and Fox (2001) and McCartney et al. (2009). Removal of
textured GM asperities was not noticed on GM/GCL failure inter-
faces. However, partial combing of filaments of the GCL nonwoven
geotextile side, and pulling-out and tearing of the reinforcement
fibers of GCL were observed in soil/GCL interface and internal GCL
shear failures, respectively.
3.2. Shear strength envelopes
The observations described above revealed that shear strength
of the composite liner system can be controlled by three failure
modes. The first and second take place at relatively low normal
stresses where failure occurs along the soil/GCL or GM/GCL inter-
face, while in the third the GCL is sheared internally at higher
normal stresses. Fig. 4 showed the peak and residual shear strength
failure envelopes for the tested specimens. It can be noticed that
the difference in failure modes resulted in a trilinear failure enve-
lope representing the lowest peak shear strength that can be
mobilized along the tested composite specimen under different
normal stresses. At their failure normal stress range, both soil/GCL
nonwoven geotextile side interface and internally sheared GCL
showed linear peak shear strength failure envelopes with apparent
cohesions and friction angles of 0 kPa and 24.5 , and 43 kPa and 13 ,
respectively (Fig. 4). On the other hand, the secant peak friction
angle of textured GM/GCL woven geotextile side interface reduces
from 24 at normal stress of 100 kPa to 22 at normal stress of
250 kPa. This nonlinearity may be attributed to the increase in the
Peak Residual
Peak
Residual
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
Normal stress (kPa)
 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
GCL hydrated bentonite extrusion to the interface with increasing
normal stress.
It is clear that values of normal stresses at which the transition
in failure modes occurs depend on the comparative values of GCL
interfaces and internal shear strengths. As shown in Fig. 4, the
transition in failure modes was assumed to occur at normal stresses
of 95 and 260 kPa. Such transition dramatically affected the shape
of failure envelope representing the lowest residual shear strengths
that can be mobilized along the tested composite specimens at
different normal stresses. As shown in Fig. 4, the lowest mobilized
residual friction angle dropped from about 20 at normal stresses
between 0 and 95 kPa to an average value of 14 at normal stresses
between 95 and 260 kPa and then to approximately 7 at normal
stresses higher than 260 kPa. This resulted in a stepped residual
shear strength failure envelope.
3.3. Mechanism of strength reduction and progressive failure
Fig. 5 shows representative shear stresseshear displacement
relationships obtained from testing the composite liner specimens.
It can be seen that the internal shear strength of GCL showed the
most significant drop from the peak to residual values. The post-
peak GCL internal shear strength loss is approximately 65%. This
high strength loss is primarily attributed to pulling-out and/or
tearing of the reinforcing fibers, and consequently orientation of
these fibers along with the bentonite particles in the direction of
shear. High post-peak reinforced GCL internal shear strength
reduction was also reported by other researchers (e.g., Gilbert et al.,
1996; Stark and Eid, 1996; Fox et al., 1998; Eid et al., 1999; Zornberg
et al., 2005). The average shear displacements required to reach the
peak and residual GCL internal shear strengths were 16 and 67 mm,
respectively.
Textured GM/GCL woven geotextile side interface showed
a post-peak shear strength loss of about 38e48%. The strength loss
120
Internal GCL Failure
Normal Stress = 300 kPa
100
Municipal Solid Waste
80 Normal Stress = 55 kPa
(Edincliler et al. 1996)
Shear stress (kPa)
60
GM/GCL Interface
Normal Stress = 150 kPa
40
20 Soil/GCL Interface
Normal Stress = 75 kPa
0
0 20 40 60 80
Shear displacement (mm)
Fig. 5. Shear stressedisplacement relationships for composite liner specimens and
municipal solid waste.
339
increases with increasing normal stress. This can be attributed to
the increase of bentonite extrusion to the interface and conse-
quently enhancing the bentonite plasticity effect on the post-peak
shear strength behavior. Plastic soils usually exhibit significant drop
from peak to residual strength (Stark and Eid, 1997). Peak and
residual shear strengths were mobilized at average displacement of
10 and 50 mm, respectively. Similar values of shear strength loss
and shear displacements were reported by Triplett and Fox (2001)
and McCartney et al. (2009) in testing textured GM/GCL interface
using large direct shear box.
Failure along soil/GCL nonwoven geotextile GCL interface
exhibited a post-peak shear strength loss of only 20%. This low
value may be attributed to the relatively low plasticity of soil and
low efficiency of such relatively smooth soil surface in combing or
orienting the nonwoven geotextile fibers parallel to the direction of
shear. Geosynthetics with rough surfaces such as textured GM can
tear, pullout, and fully orient the nonwoven geotextile filaments to
the direction of shear (Stark et al., 1996; Li and Gilbert, 1999).
Landfill Slopes can experience different types of failure modes,
some of which involve sliding along the composite liner system
(Mitchell et al., 1995). Fig. 6 shows two of these modes in which
failure surface passes entirely along the liner system [e.g. Kettleman
Hills landfill failure (Seed et al., 1990)] or through the waste at a steep
inclination and then to the underlying liner system [e.g. Mahoning
landfill failure (Stark et al., 1998)]. To account for shear strength
reduction due to progressive failure through surfaces passes entirely
along the liner system, Byrne (1994) and Filz et al. (2001) recom-
mended using a combination of, or strength between, peak and
residual shear strengths, respectively. Using numerical modeling,
Jones and Dixon (2005) recommended utilizing the peak shear
strength along a basal interface and residual strength along a side
slope interface to include the influence of waste settlement in landfill
stability assessments. Based on the liner interactive shear strength
behavior and the resulted envelopes shown in Section 3.2, residual
shear strength to be used following these recommendations should
correspond to the interface or internal shear surface that exhibits the
lowest peak shear strength. Magnitude of the effective normal stress
acting on the liner portion that experiences larger displacements
would dictate the nature of such surface. In studying progressive
failures through planes pass through the waste and then along the
liner system, this shear strength should be directly assigned to the
liner system because of the strain incompatibility between MSW and
the underlying liner components.
Strain incompatibility between MSW and the composite liner
components tested in this study is also shown in Fig. 5. It can be
seen that the liner component internal and interfaces shear
strength reached the peak values at shear displacements of less
than 20 mm and then undergo a significant post-peak loss. On the
other hand, the peak shear strength of the waste is achieved at
a displacement of about 40 mm, and remains approximately
constant for larger displacement. As a result, the shear strength
mobilized in MSW and the underlying liner at the global failure
may correspond to the peak and residual conditions, respectively.
Similar conclusion was reached for geosynthetic interfaces (Byrne,
Failure along the
Liner System Only
Failure through the
Waste and Liner System
100 Solid Waste
Liner System
Subgrade
Fig. 6. Landfill failure modes involving sliding along the liner system.
340 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344

1994; Mitchell et al., 1995) and foundation soils (Eid et al., 2000) 10
because of their strain incompatibility with MSW. 28
26.9 Shearing normal stress = 17 kPa
In preliminary slope stability analyses, peak shear strength Rate of shear = 0.015 mm/min
8
envelope that reflects the interactive behavior of the liner compo-

Shear stress (kPa)

nents can be assigned to the composite liner as one layer. The GCL Geomembrane Backing/Soil Interfcae
6 (Bentonite Water Content = 11%)
common practice is to assign separate envelopes for each possible
16
interface and internal shearing surface. Testing technique described
in this study and resulted in this envelope can be followed to avoid 4 Textured GM/Hydrated Bentonite Interface
(Bentonite Water Content = 158%)
measuring shear strength of each interface separately at the entire
range of normal stresses acting on the liner system. A significant 2 6
time and effort would be saved in determining the composite liner
shear strengths and analyzing the stability of landfill slopes 0
through utilizing such technique and the corresponding interactive 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
shear strength envelopes, respectively. Shear displacement (mm)

Fig. 8. Typical shear stressedisplacement relationships for the composite cover

specimens.
4. Cover system testing results and analysis

4.1. Interface shear strength
Visual inspection of the failed composite cover specimens
revealed that the shear failure surface location depends on the GCL
bentonite degree of hydration or water content. For specimens with
bentonite water contents of 11 and 34%, shearing occurred at the
GCL smooth GM backing/sand interface. For specimens with higher
water contents, shear surface was located between the textured GM
and the hydrated bentonite (Fig. 7). The peak and residual shear
strengths were typically reached at a shear displacement of 1.5 and
8 mm, respectively, for the driest two specimens, and at 5 and
70 mm, respectively, for the more hydrated specimens. It is antic-
ipated that the sand granular particles required less shear
displacement to orient parallel to the direction of shear and achieve
a residual strength condition than the microscopic particles of
hydrated bentonite.
The interface shear stressedisplacement relationships that
represent the composite cover specimen two modes of failure are
shown in Fig. 8. It should be noted that at bentonite water content
of 158%, the textured GM/bentonite interface exhibited the most
significant drop from a peak friction angle of 16 to a residual one of
only 6 . Such low measured residual friction angle is close to the
residual shear strength friction angle estimated based on the
effective normal stress and bentonite liquid limit and clay-size
fraction assuming a drained shearing condition (Stark and Eid,
1994). This suggests that having a thin bentonite layer, drainage
through the specimen inner and outer circumferences, and slow
rate of shear helped in minimizing the development of excess pore-
water pressures during shear in spite of encapsulating the sheared
bentonite between two geomembranes.
Fig. 8 also shows that the GCL smooth GM backing/sand inter-
Peak and residual friction angles measured in testing the
composite cover specimens were plotted in Fig. 9 to illustrate the
effect of the GCL degree of hydration on shear strength behavior of
the composite cover system. Based on the measured angle values,
the move of failure surface location from the GCL smooth GM
backing/sand interface to the textured GM/bentonite one was
estimated to be at bentonite water content of 47%. Fig. 9 also shows
that the textured GM/bentonite interface exhibits an insignificant
decrease in both peak and residual strengths at water contents
greater than 65%. Similar conclusion was reached by Daniel et al.
(1993) for peak shear strength of GCL bentonite component at
water contents greater than about 50%. This behavior can be
interpreted in terms of having the majority of the clay particles
hydrated at relatively high water contents.
It should be noted that friction angles measured by Eid and Stark
(1997) at bentonite water contents of 11 and 34% for a textured GM/
bentonite interface similar to that utilized in this study were also
included in Fig. 9. This was done to show the effect of bentonite
hydration on shear strength behavior of such interface over a full
range of bentonite water content. It should be also noticed that
specimen at water content of 34% exhibited a higher peak interface
friction angle than that of the specimen at water content of 11%
tested at the same normal stress and shearing rate. This may be
60
Failure Interface Peak Residual Source of Data
GCL Smooth GM Backing/Soil This Study [Fail. occured along the
Textured GM/GCL Bentonite weakest interf.]
50
Eid and Stark (1997) [Fail. forced to
Textured GM/GCL Bentonite
occure along text. GM/bent. interf.]
Friction angle (degrees)

face yielded a peak and residual friction angles of 28 and 26.9 ,

40
Normal Stress = 17 kPa
respectively. These interface friction angle values and their relation
to the sand critical friction angle are in good agreement with the 30
smooth GM/Ottawa sand interface friction angles reported by
Fleming et al. (2006) using direct shear box. Such agreement
supports the reliability of the data presented in this study. 20
Peak

Failure Water
Mode Content (%) 10
Residual
Textured GM
GM/Bentonite 52, 73 and 158
Unreinf. Bentonite
Smooth GM Back. 0
GCL GCL backing/Soil 11 and 34 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175
Sand Water content (%)

Fig. 7. Water contents of the unreinforced GCL bentonite and the associated shear Fig. 9. Influence of the water content of unreinforced GCL bentonite on peak and
failure surfaces of the composite cover specimens tested at normal stress of 17 kPa. residual shear strengths of the composite cover specimens.
 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344 341

attributed to more penetration and interlocking of the textured GM landfill cover pad constructed along with other thirteen GCL test
into the bentonite at water content and normal stress of 34% and pads at an operating waste containment facility under the super-
17 kPa, respectively. However, the drop from the peak to residual vision of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Koerner et al.,
interface shear strength is smaller for the drier specimen due to 1996a; Scranton, 1996; Daniel et al., 1998). The failed pad was one of
a less tendency to orient particles in the direction of shear. two utilized the GM-backed GCL/textured GM interface. These two
Fig. 9 also shows that most of the drop in peak and residual pads were inclined at angles of 16.9 and 23.6 , and referred to as
strength of the textured GM/bentonite interface occurs at water test pads A and F, respectively. Fig. 10a presents a detailed cross-
contents between 35% and 60%. Illustrations showing the effect of section of test pad F. The geosynthetics and the GCL of each test pad
water content on GCL interface strength similar to Fig. 9 are not were extended over the crest and anchored in a trench. The geo-
available in the literature because it: (1) includes both the peak synthetics were then cut at the crest to transfer all of the cover soil
and residual interface shear strengths; (2) presents shear strength shear stresses to the internal structure of the GCL.
data at normal stress that simulates MSW landfill cover system On March 24, 1996, 495 days after installation, while test pad A
pressures. was performing satisfactory, test pad F slid along the covering GM/
underlying unreinforced bentonite interface. Test pad F was 10.5 m
4.2. Hydration and progressive failure wide and 20.4 m long and slid as a block into the open excavation at
the toe of the slope (Koerner et al., 1996a). Eighteen test pits were
Hydration of encapsulated bentonite is usually not uniform excavated on March 8, 1995 to sample the encapsulated bentonite.
because hydration only occurs at the location of holes in the The locations of the samples and the corresponding water content of
overlying and/or underlying geomembranes. As a result, it is the bentonite are shown in Fig. 10b. It should be noted that the initial
probably typical for a GCL to be more hydrated in some areas of water content of the GCL bentonite was between 15 and 25 percent
a slope, e.g., sumps, failed seams, or instrumentation locations. As (Scranton, 1996). The bentonite water contents shown in Fig. 10b
shown in Section 4.1, the hydrated bentonite exhibits low peak reveal that the hydration pattern in test pad F can be approximately
shear strength and large post-peak strength loss. Therefore, if the
shear stresses in the hydrated areas of the slope exceed the peak
shear strength of the hydrated GCL, shear displacement and a 0.9 m Compacted
consequently strength reduction will occur in these areas. Because Soil Cover
of this strength loss, excess shear stresses will be transferred to
adjacent, less hydrated areas. Shear stresses in the adjacent areas Drainage
may in turn exceed their peak shear strength and cause a strength Composite 1.5 mm Textured
HDPE GM
reduction in such areas. Through this mechanism, shear stresses are Location of
transferred along a potential failure surface and progressive failure Deformation
Bentonite Unrein.
could continue until a continuous failure surface is developed. GM Backing GCL
Bjerrum (1967) presented a similar failure mechanism for plastic
Natural
clays subjected to non-uniform shear stresses. subgrade
Based on the progressive failure mechanism described above,
shear stresses at any portion of unreinforced GCL cover slopes
should not exceed the peak shear strength of the fully hydrated Crest
bentonite interface to avoid the failure initiation. Considering the b 27 76 33
data shown in Fig. 9, a cover that comprises geosynthetic compo- 107
nents similar to those tested in this study should not be sloped at an
angle more than 16 [i.e., a 1(vertical): 3.5 (horizontal) slope]. It Deformation
should be noted that this recommendation is not in agreement Tube
with that introduced by Stark and Choi (2004) for design of cover 32 Locations
slopes utilizing residual shear strength when large construction- 42 34 28
induced displacements are expected. Following standard
construction precautions significantly minimizes the possibility of Water
having the time along with the amount of water needed to fully Content (%) 27
hydrate the GCL bentonite before the completion of placement and
34
occurrence of any large displacement of the composite cover
system components. During construction, the bentonite may reach 86
partially hydrated condition similar to that achieved by the GCL Hydrated Area
bentonite utilized in this study through allowing it to hydrate in
a moist room. As a result, large construction-induced displacement 31 29 188
may only lead to mobilization of residual strength at either the GCL 50
GM backing/sand interface or/and the textured GM/partially
hydrated bentonite interface, depending on the displaced compo-
nents. Both of these interfaces exhibit residual strength that is
greater than the peak strength of the textured GM/fully hydrated 70 104 57
bentonite (Fig. 9).
Toe
4.3. Case history Left panel Right panel

CL
A well-documented case history is analyzed to support the
validity of the shear test results and progressive failure mechanism Fig. 10. Details for test pad F: (a) cross section (not to scale); (b) water conten of
described in the previous section. The case involves a failure of bentonite (data from Koerner et al. 1996a).
342
divided into two areas. First, the hydrated area is primarily located
in the right panel with water content ranges between 57 and 188
percent. Second, the partially hydrated area covers approximately
the left panel with water content ranges between 27 and 42%.
The movements of test pad F were measured using extensome-
ters located near the toe of each panel (Koerner et al., 1996b). Fig. 11
presents the displacement data and shows that the left panel did not
move significantly during the first 270 days after monitoring star-
ted. Conversely, the right panel showed signs of downslope move-
ment shortly after construction was completed. After 330 days from
construction, the right panel had deformed 500 mm while the left
panel had only deformed 180 mm. This data suggests a clockwise
rotation of the test pad. The right panel displaced about 750 mm
prior to failure. However, both panels failed evenly and there was no
rotation during failure (Koerner et al., 1996a; Scranton, 1996).
To gain a better understanding of the failure mechanism of test
pad F and the associated mobilized shear strengths, the slope
failure was investigated using the torsional ring shear testing
results presented in this study and a 3D slope stability analysis.
Bishop’s simplified method of slices (Bishop, 1955) was used to
conduct the 3D limit equilibrium analysis. Bishop’s simplified
method was extended to three-dimensions by Hungr (1987) and
coded in the microcomputer program CLARA-W (Hungr, 2001).
Fig. 12 presents a cross-section of test pad F which shows that the
geosynthetics did not extend beyond the cover soil. Therefore,
shear resistance was developed on two vertical planes in the cover
soil as well as along the GCL/GM interface. As a result, a failure
surface consisting of the GCL/GM interface and two vertical planes
through the cover soil (Fig. 12) was analyzed. As with all of the
commercially available 3D slope stability analysis programs, the
CLARA-W ignores the shear resistance along the vertical sides of
the sliding mass. To overcome this limitation, the technique
introduced by Eid et al. (2006) for quantifying and incorporating
the end effects was utilized to estimate shear resistance mobilized
along the vertical sides of the sliding mass shown in Fig. 12. The
friction angle and total unit weight of the cover soil were estimated
to be 35 and 19 kN/m3, respectively (Stark and Eid, 1997). Different
values of shear strength of bentonite/textured GM interface were
used in the analysis to determine the interface shear strength that
was mobilized at failure.
Most of the specimens that were taken from the hydrated area
of test pad F exhibited water contents greater than 70% (Fig. 10b).
Based on the data presented in Fig. 9, having water content more
than this value practically does not affect the measured value of
textured GM/bentonite interface shear strength. As a result, shear
strength friction angles yielded from testing the composite cover
specimen at bentonite water content of 158% (i.e., peak and residual
friction angles of 16 and 6 , respectively) were used to represent
Time (days)
-50 0 100 200
50
Downslope displacement (mm)
150
250
350
Water
450 Content
Sampling
Cutting
550 of
Geosynthetics
Left panel
650
Right panel
750
Fig. 11. Measured downslope displacement versus time of test pad F (data points from
Koerner et al., 1996a).
H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
10.5 m 0.6 m
Compacted soil
0.9 m
0.3 m
Failure surface
Geosynthetics
Fig. 12. Test pad F transverse cross-section used in the 3D slope stability analysis.
the interface strength of test pad F hydrated area. Similarly, friction
angles measured for the same interface at water content of 34% (i.e.,
peak and residual friction angles of 41% and 30 , respectively) were
used to reflect the interface strength of the pad partially hydrated
area that exhibited an average water content of 32%.
As shown in the test results, shear strength of the unreinforced
GCL bentonite controlled the behavior of the utilized composite
cover specimens. Both of the GCLs utilized in comprising these
composite specimens and that used in constructing test pad F were
manufactured by the same company and have the same bentonite
type and commercial name (Gundseal). As a result, no significant
difference is expected between their bentonite mechanical prop-
erties (Rosin-Paumier et al., 2010). This supports the validity of
using the testing results presented in Section 4.1 in analyzing the
case history.
The 3D slope stability analysis yielded a factor of safety of
approximately 1.6 when peak friction angles were used for the
partially hydrated and hydrated portions of the bentonite/textured
GM interface. However, the factor of safety using the residual fric-
tion angles for the partially hydrated and hydrated portions of the
bentonite/textured GM interface was 1.03. This indicates that
the partially hydrated and hydrated areas may have mobilized the
residual condition and progressive failure due to non-uniform
hydration of bentonite may have been developed at the GCL slope
failure of test pad F.
The non-uniform hydration pattern represented in Fig. 10b
along with the comparison of the laboratory and field shear
displacement behavior shown in Figs. 8 and 11, respectively,
provides an insight or explanation for the pre-failure movements
and leads to a proposed failure mechanism of three steps. In the
first step, the GCL/textured GM interface in the right panel probably
mobilized a residual strength condition by moving approximately
270 mm before the geosynthetics were cut at the top of the slope.
This was caused by the slope angle (23.6 ) being steeper than the
peak friction angle of the hydrated interface (16 ) which is located
essentially in the right panel. The entire test pad did not fail at this
point because of the high shearing resistance provided by the
partially hydrated bentonite in the left panel and anchorage of the
geosynthetics at the top of the slope. However, the test pad rotated
clockwise showing a small upslope displacement for the left panel.
The second step occurred after cutting the geosynthetics (169 days
300 400 500
after installation), the slope was then free to move which was
reflected in a rapid 50 mm downslope movement of the right panel.
The left panel did not show displacement until 275 days after
installation because of the high mobilized friction angle of the dry
bentonite/textured GM interface and the clockwise rotation of the
test pad (Fig. 11). The third step started approximately 300 days
Failure Occurred
after construction, when interface shear stresses in the relatively
dry area of the left panel caused mobilization of a post-peak
interface strength and the left and right panel showed a downslope
displacement of about 150 and 450 mm, respectively. At this point,
the slope had essentially failed. However, the mass did not entirely
slide into the excavation at the slope toe because of the resisting
forces along the sides that were caused by the rotational movement
of the pad. The angle of rotation gradually decreased with
 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
additional downslope displacement until both panels failed evenly
495 days after installation.
The above failure mechanism may not be the only interpretation
for the failure of test pad F. However, the hydration pattern and
progressive failure of this case suggest that the shear stresses on any
portion of a slope should not exceed the peak strength of the hydrated
bentonite interface. Otherwise, failure will occur in the overstressed
portion which may initiate a progressive failure mechanism.
5. Conclusions
This study illustrates the interactive shear strength behavior of
the components typically utilized in MSW landfill composite liner
and cover systems. Composite specimens that simulate field align-
ment of the components were utilized to experimentally investigate
such behavior. Torsional ring shear apparatus was used to allow for
simultaneous shearing of the composite specimen without forcing
shear failure to occur through a pre-determined plane. The utilized
composite liner specimens consisted of a textured GM underlain by
a needle-punched GCL resting on compacted silty clay. Composite
cover specimens comprised textured GM placed on unreinforced
smooth GM-backed GCL resting on compacted sand. Other combi-
nations of soil and geosynthetics could be used in comprising
landfill liner and cover systems. As a result, the following conclu-
sions focus on describing the general concept of interactive shear
strength behavior and its effect on landfill slope stability analyses
rather than introducing specific shear strength values:
1. In composite liner system, location of the shear failure surface
depends on the magnitude of applied normal stress. Shear
strength of the system can be controlled by different failure
modes. Failure following these modes may result in a bilinear
or trilinear peak strength envelope and a corresponding step-
ped residual strength envelope. Normal stresses at which the
transition in failure modes occurs depend on the comparative
values of the GCL interfaces and internal shear strength.
2. In preliminary slope stability analyses, peak shear strength
envelope that reflects the interactive behavior of the liner
components can be assigned to the composite liner as one layer.
The common practice is to assign separate envelopes for each
possible interface and internal shearing surface. In case of
utilizing specimen that comprises all of the possible critical
interfaces, testing technique described in this study can be fol-
lowed to avoid measuring shear strength of each interface
separately at the entire range of normal stresses acting on the
liner system. A significant time and effort would be saved in
determining the composite liner shear strengths and analyzing
the stability of landfill slopes through utilizing such technique
and the corresponding interactive shear strength envelopes,
respectively.
3. To study the possibility of progressive failure through planes
pass entirely along landfill liner system, residual shear strength
of the interface or internal shear surface that exhibits the
lowest peak strength should be utilized in accounting for shear
strength reduction. Magnitude of the effective normal stress
acting on the liner portion that experiences larger displace-
ments would dictate the nature of such surface. In studying
progressive failures through planes pass through the waste and
then along the liner, residual shear strength should be directly
assigned to the liner system because of the strain incompati-
bility between MSW and the underlying liner components.
4. In composite cover systems, hydrating the unreinforced GCL
can control the location of the shearing plane. Bentonite water
content at which the transition in failure mode occurs
depends on the shear strength of soil comprised in the cover
343
system. Chart was introduced to show peak and residual shear
strengths of the critical interfaces at normal stress that
simulates MSW landfill cover system pressures.
5. In MSW landfills, hydration of GCL is usually not uniform. This
hydration may lead to progressive failure in unreinforced GCL
slopes. If shear stresses in the hydrated areas of the slope
exceed the peak strength of the hydrated GCL, shear displace-
ment and consequently strength reduction will occur trans-
ferring the excess stresses to adjacent, less hydrated areas that
in turn may fail and develop a continuous failure surface.
Analysis of a well-documented case history of failed composite
cover slope confirmed the possibility of this mechanism. As
a result, shear stresses at any portion of unreinforced GCL cover
slopes should not exceed the peak shear strength of the fully
hydrated bentonite interface.
References
ASTM D 4546, 2003. Standard Test Method for One-dimensional Swell or Settle-
ment Potential of Cohesive Soils. Annual Book of ASTM Standards West Con-
shohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
ASTM D 5321, 2002. Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil
and Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear
Method. Annual Book of ASTM Standards West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
USA.
ASTM D 6243, 2008. Standard Test Method for Determining the Internal and
Interface Shear Resistance of Geosynthetic Clay Liner by the Direct Shear
Method. Annual Book of ASTM Standards West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania,
USA.
Basudhar, A.P.K., 2010. Modeling of soil-woven geotextile interface from direct
shear test results. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (4), 403e408.
Bergado, D.T., Ramana, G.V., Sia, H.I., Varun, 2006. Evaluation of interface shear
strength of composite liner system and stability analysis for a landfill lining
system in Thailand. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (6), 371e393.
Bishop, A.W., 1955. The use of the slip circle in the stability analysis of slopes.
Geotechnique 5 (1), 7e17.
Bjerrum, L., 1967. Progressive failure in slopes of overconsolidated plastic clay and
clay shales. ASCE Journal of Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering 93 (5),
3e49.
Byrne, R.J., 1994. Design issues with strain-softening interfaces in landfill liners. In:
Proceedings of Waste Tech’94 Conference. National Solid Waste Management
Association, Charleston, South Carolina, pp. 1e26.
Byrne, R.J., Kendall, J., Brown, S., 1992. Cause and mechanism of failure of Kettleman
Hills landfill. In: Proceedings of ASCE Conference of Satability and Performance
of Slopes and Embankments II. Univ. of California, Berkeley, ASCE Geotechnical
Special Technical Publication No. 31, pp. 1e23.
Chen, Y., Lin, W., Zhan, T.L.T., 2010. Investigation of mechanisms of bentonite
extrusion from GCL and related effects on the shear strength of GCL/GM
interfaces. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 28 (1), 63e71.
Daniel, D.E., Shan, H.-Y., 1992. Effect of Partial Wetting of Gundseal on Strength and
Hydrocarbon Permeability. Research Report Prepared for Gundle Lining System,
Inc. University of Texas at Austin, Austin, USA, 13 pp.
Daniel, D.E., Wu, Y.K., 1993. Compacted clay liners and covers for arid sites. ASCE
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 119 (2), 223e237.
Daniel, D.E., Shan, H.-Y., Anderson, J.D., 1993. Effect of partial wetting on the
performance of the bentonite component of a geosynthetic clay liner. In:
Proceedings of Geosynthetics’93, Vancouver, British Colombia, Canada, vol. 3,
pp. 1483e1496.
Daniel, D.E., Koerner, R.M., Bonaparte, R., Landreth, R.E., Carson, D.A., Scranton, H.B.,
1998. Slope stability of geosynthetic clay liner test plots. ASCE Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 124 (7), 628e637.
Edincliler, A., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 1996. Shear Strength of Municipal Solid Waste.
Interim Report-Year 1, Envir. Geotechnics Res. Report 96e2. Prepared for WMX
Technologies, Inc.. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Eid, H.T., Stark, T.D., 1997. Shear behavior of an unreinforced geosynthetic clay liner.
Geosynthetics International 4 (6), 645e659.
Eid, H.T., Stark, T.D., Doefler, C.K., 1999. Effect of shear displacement rate on internal
shear strength of a reinforced geosynrhetic clay liner. Geosynthetics Interna-
tional 6 (3), 219e239.
Eid, H.T., Stark, T.D., Evans, W.D., Sherry, P.E., 2000. Municipal solid waste slope
failure 1: waste and foundation soil properties. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 126 (5), 397e407.
Eid, H.T., Elleboudy, A.M., Elmarsafawi, H.G., Salama, A.G., 2006. Stability analysis
and charts for slopes susceptible to translational failure. Canadian Geotechnical
Journal 43 (12), 1374e1388.
Eid, H.T., Alansari, O.A., Odeh, A.M., Nasr, M.N., Sadek, H.A., 2009. Comparative study
on the behavior of square foundations resting on confined sand. Canadian
Geotechnical Journal 46 (4), 438e453.
344 H.T. Eid / Geotextiles and Geomembranes 29 (2011) 335e344
EN ISO 12957-1, 2005. Geosynthetics-determination of Friction Characteristcs - Part
1: Direct Shear Test.
Esterhuizen, J.J.B., Filz, G.M., Duncan, J.M., 2001. Constitutive behavior of geo-
synthetic interfaces. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 127 (10), 834e840.
Filz, G.M., Esterhuizen, J.B., Duncan, J.M., 2001. Progressive failure of lined waste
impoundments. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering 127 (10), 841e848.
Fleming, I.R., Sharam, J.S., Jogi, M.B., 2006. Shear strength of geomembrane-soil
interface ubder unsaturated conditions. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 24 (5),
274e284.
Fox, P.J., Kim, R.H., 2008. Effect of progressive failure on measured shear strength of
geomembrane/GCL interface. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering 134 (4), 459e469.
Fox, P.J., Stark, T.D., 2004. State-of-the-art report: GCL shear strength and its
measurement. Geosynthetics International 11 (3), 141e175.
Fox, P.J., Rowland, M.G., Scheithe, J.R., 1998. Internal shear strength of three geo-
synthetic clay liners. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 124 (10), 933e944.
Gilbert, R.B., Bryne, R.J., 1996. Strain-softening behavior of waste containment
system interface. Geosynthetics International 3 (2), 181e203.
Gilbert, R.B., Fernandez, F., Horsfield, D.W., 1996. Shear strength of reinforced geo-
synthetic clay liner. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122 (4), 259e266.
Gilbert, R.B., Scranton, H.B., Daniel, D.E., 1997. Shear strength testing for geosynthetic
clay liners. In: Wells, L.W. (Ed.), Testing and Acceptance for Geosynthetic Clay
Liners, SPT 1308. American Society for Testing and Materials, pp. 121e135.
Hungr, O., 1987. An extension of bishop’s simplified method of slope stability
analysis to three dimensions. Geotechnique 37 (1), 113e117.
Hungr, O., 2001. User’s Manual: CLARA-W, Slope Stability. Oldrich Hungr
Geotechnical Research, Inc., West Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
Jones, D.R.V., Dixon, N., 2005. Landfill lining stability and integrity: the role of waste
settlement. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 23 (1), 27e53.
Koerner, R.M., 1994. Designing with Geosynthetics, third ed. Prentice-Hall, Engle-
wood Cliffs, New Jersey.
Koerner, R.M., Daniel, D.E., Bonaparte, R., 1996a. Current status of the Cincinnati GCL
Test plots. In: Proceedings of the 10th GRI Conference on Field Performance of
Geosynthetics and Geosynthetic Related Systems. Drexel University, Phila-
delphia, PA, pp. 147e175.
Koerner, R.M., Bowders, J.J., Scranton, H.B., 1996b. Instrumentation for monitoring
field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots. In: Proceedings of the 10th
GRI Conference on Field Performance of Geosynthetics and Geosynthetic
Related Systems. Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA, pp. 176e203.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T.-Y., Gontar, A., 1998. Selected aspects of GCL shear strength
testing. In: Proceedings of Geo-Beno 1998. Insatec Publications, France, pp. 97e110.
Li, M.H., Gilbert, R.B., 1999. Shear strength of textured geomembrane and nonwoven
geotextile interfaces. In: Proceedings of Geosynthetics’99 Conference. Industrial
Fabrics Association, Roseville, Minnesota.
McCartney, J.S., Zornberg, J.G., Swan, R.H., 2009. Analysis of a large database of GCL-
geomembrane interface shear strength results. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering 135 (2), 209e223.
Mitchell, J.K., Seed, R.B., Seed, H.B., 1990. Kettleman Hills landfill slope failure I:
liner-system properties. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 116 (4),
647e668.
Mitchell, J.K., Bray, J.D., Mitchell, R.A., 1995. Material interactions in solid waste
landfills. In: Proceedings of Geoenvironmental 2000 Conference, ASCE Geotech.
Spec. Publ. No. 46, pp. 568e590.
Mesri, G., 1969. Engineering Properties of Montmorillonite. Ph.D. thesis, University
of Illinois at Urbana, Champaign.
Mesri, G., Olson, R.E., 1970. Shear strength of montmorillonite. Geotechnique 20 (3),
261e270.
Müller, W., Jakob, I., Seeger, S., Tatzky-Gerth, R., 2008. Long-term shear strength of
geosynthetic clay liners. Geotextiles and Geomembranes 26 (2), 130e144.
Palmeira, E.M., 2009. Soil-geosynthetic interaction: modeling and analysis. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes 27 (5), 368e390.
Rosin-Paumier, S., Touze-Foltz, N., Pantet, A., Monnet, P., Didier, G., Guyonnet, D.,
Norotte, V., 2010. Swell index, oedopermeametric, filter press and rheometric
tests for identifying the qualification of bentonites used in GCLs. Geosynthetics
International 17 (1), 1e11.
Scranton, H.B., 1996. Field Performance of Sloping Test Plots Containing Geo-
synthetic Clay Liners. M.Sc. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, 207 pp.
Seed, R.B., Mitchell, J.K., Seed, H.B., 1990. Kettleman Hills waste landfill slope failure
II: stability analysis. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 116 (4), 669e691.
Stark, T.D., Eid, H.T., 1994. Drained residual strength of cohesive soils. ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering 120 (5), 856e871.
Stark, T.D., Eid, H.T., 1996. Shear behavior of reinforced geosynthetic clay liners.
Geosynthetics International 3 (6), 771e786.
Stark, T.D., Eid, H.T., 1997. Slope stability analyses in stiff fissured clays. ASCE Journal
of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering 123 (4), 335e343.
Stark, T.D., Choi, H., 2004. Peak versus residual interface strengths for landfill liner
and cover design. Geosynthetics International 11 (6), 491e498.
Stark, T.D., Williamson, T.A., Eid, H.T., 1996. HDPE geomembrane/geotextile interface
shear strength. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical Engineering 122 (3), 197e203.
Stark, T.D., Arellano, D., Evans, W.D., Wilson, V.L., Gonda, J.M., 1998. Unreinforced
geosynthetic clay liner case history. Geosynthetics International 5 (5),
521e544.
Swan Jr., R.H., Bonaparte, R., Bachus, R.C., Rivette, C.A., Spikula, D.R., 1991. Effect of
soil compaction conditions on geomembrane-soil interface strength. Geo-
textiles and Geomembranes 10 (5), 523e529.
Takasumi, D.L., Green, K.R., Holtz, R.D., 1991. Soil-geosynthetics interface strength
characteristics: a review of state-of-the-art testing procedures. In: Proceedings
of Geosynthetics’91, Atlanta, USA, pp. 87e100.
Triplett, E.J., Fox, P.J., 2001. Shear strength of HDPE geomembrane/geosynthetic clay
liner interfaces. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engi-
neering 127 (6), 543e552.
Vukeli c, A., Szavits-Nossan, A., Kvasni cka, P., 2008. The influence of bentonite
extrusion on shear strength of GCL/geomembrane interface. Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 26 (1), 82e90.
Zornberg, J.G., McCartney, J.S., Swan, R.H., 2005. Internal shear strength of geo-
symthetic clay liners. ASCE Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering 131 (3), 1e14.