APPENDIX H

Geomembrane Liner Stability Calculations



Interface Description: Geocomposite overlying 60-mil HOPE Liner

Cover Thickness (ft): 0.02875

Slope Angle (degrees): 18.43 Radians: 0.32
Length of Slope (ft): 135

Unit weight of Cover Soil (pcf): 0.436

Friction angle of Cover Soil (°): 0 Radians: 0.00
Cohesion of Cover Soil (psf): 5
Interface Friction Angle (°): 26 Radians: 0.45
Interface Adhesion (psf): 0 .
Tensile Force (Ibs): 0

Wa (Ib/ft) 1.69
Na (Hot) 1.60
Wp (Ib/ft) 0.00
C (Ib/ft) 0.45
Ca (Iblft): 0.00

a: 0.16
b: -0.38
c: 0.00

Factor of Safety : 2.36



Interface Description: 60-mil HDPE Liner overlying Geotextile wrap

Cover Thickness (ft): 0.0325

Slope Angle (degrees): 18.43 Radians: 0.32
Length of Slope (ft): 135

Unit weight of Cover Soil (pcf): 0.616

Friction angle of Cover Soil (°): 0 Radians: 0.00
Cohesion of Cover Soil (psf): 1
Interface Friction Angle (°): 25 Radians: 0.44
Interface Adhesion (psf): 0
Tensile Force (Ibs): 0

Wa (Iblft) 2.7
Na (Ib/ft) 2.6
Wp (Ib/ft) 0.0
C (lb/ft) 0.1
Ca (Iblft): 0.0

a: 0.3
b: -0.4
c: 0.0

Factor of Safety : 1.53



Interface Description: Non-woven geotextile over Subgrade

Cover Thickness (ft): 0.67

Slope Angle (degrees): 18.43 Radians: 0.32
Length of Slope (ft): 102

Unit weight of Cover Soil (pct): 190.39

Friction angle of Cover Soil (°): 25 Radians: 0.44
Cohesion of Cover Soil (psf): 0
Interface Friction Angle (°): 26.2 Radians: 0.46
Interface Adhesion (psf): 0
Tensile Force (Ibs): 0

Wa (Ib/ft) 12726.7
Na (lb/ft) 12073.9
Wp (Ib/ft) 142.5
C (Iblft) 0.0
Ca (Iblft): 0.0

a: 1206.8
b: -1990.4
c: 276.9

Factor of Safety : 1.50



Interface Description: Non-woven geotextile over Subgrade

Cover Thickness (ft): 0.67

Slope Angle (degrees): 18.43 Radians: 0.32
Length of Slope (ft): 102

Unit weight of Cover Soil (pcf): 40.6 (Assume Saturated Conditions)

Friction angle of Cover Soil (°): 25 Radians: 0.44
Cohesion of Cover Soil (psf): 0
Interface Friction Angle (°): 26.2 Radians: 0.46
Interface Adhesion (psf): 0
Tensile Force (Ibs): 0

Wa (Ib/ft) 2713.9
Na (Iblft) 2574.7
Wp (Iblft) 30.4
C (lb/ft) 0.0
Ca (Iblft): 0.0

a: 257.3
b: -424.5
c: 59.0

Factor of Safety : 1.50

Designing with
Geosynthetics
Fifth Edition

Robert M. Koerner
Director, Geosyn.thetic Institute
Emeritus Professor of Drexel University

Upper Saddle River, New Jersey 07458



382 Designing with Geogrids Chap, 3

The expression for determining the factor of safety. considering the active wedge,
can be derived as follows:
tan (31
4V -'y h° (3.15)
h sing 2 I'
NA = 4 TA cos (3 (3.16)

_ h
Ca - Cn L - (3,17)
sin

By balancing the forces in the vertical direction, the following formulation results:
NAtan
E4 sin 13 = WA - NA cos (3 -sin 13
FS
Hence the interwedge force acting on the active wedge is
(FS)(W A - NA cos 13) - (NA tan + Ca) sin (3
EA _
sin 13 (FS)
The passive wedge can be considered in a similar manner:

rp (3.18)
sin 2(3
Np = Wp + Ep sin 13 (3.19)
C= (^)O (3.20)

By balancing the forces in the horizontal direction, the following formulation results:
C + N.p tan
Ep cos (3 =
FS
Hence the interwedge force acting on the passive wedge is

P
C+Wp tan 4
cos I3(FS) - sin 13 tan

By setting EA = EP, the following equation can be arranged in the form of

ax` + bx + c = 0, which in our case, using FS values, is

a(FS)2 +b(FS)+c=0 (3.21)

where
a=(4iA-NA.cos (3)cos (3, (322)
b = -[(WA - NA cos (3) sin 13 tan 4+
(NA tan 8 + Ca)
(3.23)
sin 13 cos (3 + sin (3(C + Wi, tan c))], and
c = (NA tan 8 + Ca) sin' 13 tan c[i (3.24)


Sec. 3.2 Designing for Geogrid Reinforcement 383

The resulting FS value is then obtained from the following equation:

,-b + 1/b2 - 4 ac
FS= (3.25)
2a
where (in Figure 3.22a and in the above analysis)

WA = total weight of the active wedge,

WP total weight of the passive wedge,
NA = effective force normal to the failure plane of the active wedge,
Np = effective force normal to the failure plane of the passive wedge,
y = unit weight of the cover soil,
h = thickness of the cover soil,
L = length of slope measured along the geomembrane,
= soil slope angle beneath the geomembrane,
= friction angle of the cover soil,
8 = interface friction angle between cover soil and geomembrane,
Ca = adhesive force between cover soil of the active wedge and the
geomembrane,
adhesion between cover soil of the active wedge and the geomembrane,
C = cohesive force along the failure plane of the passive wedge,
c = cohesion of the cover soil,
EA = interwedge force acting on the active wedge from the passive wedge,
Ep interwedge force acting on the passive wedge from the active wedge, and
FS = factor of safety against cover soil sliding on the geomembrane

When the calculated FS value falls below 1.0, a stability failure of the cover soil sliding
on the geomembrane is to be anticipated.Thus a value greater than 1.0 must be target-
ed as being the minimum factor of safety. How much greater than 1.0 the FS value
should be is a design and/or regulatory issue. Example 3.12 illustrates the procedure.
Example 3.12
Given a cover soil slope of - 18.4° (i.e. 3H-to-1V), L = 30 m, h = 900 mm,
= 18 kNlm3, c = 0, = 30°, c, - 0, 8 = 18°, determine the resulting factor of safety.
Solution:
2^L ] - tan li)
WA=- ^h h sin 13 2
30 1 - t;an18.4 )
(18.0)(0.90) (
L` D90 sin 18.4 2
= 14.58(33.3 - 3.17 - 0.17)
- 437 kN/m


550 Designing with Geomembranes Chap. 5

For termination of double liner systems, the designer is faced with a number of
possible choices.. Major considerations are to protect the integrity of both geomem-
branes and to keep surface water out of the leak detection system. In this regard, the
two geomembranes can enter separate anchor trenches or come together in a common
anchor trench. The primary geomernbrane can also be cut short of the anchor trench
and welded to the secondary geomenibrane along the horizontal runout distance. Ea
seismically active areas, consideration should be given to this latter approach with no
vertical anchor trench at all; the logic being that geomembrane pullout is more desir-
able than geontenzbrane tensile failure somewhere along the side slope.
The terminus of the liner of a completed internal cell within a zoned landfill, with
its eventual extension into an adjacent cell, is usually done by overlapping and seaming
along the horizontal ruizout length of an intermediate berm. When waste fills the sec-
ond cell, the berm is entombed and the process is then continued from cell to cell.
Shear stresses on the geomembranes in both cells over this berm have been evaluated
by large-scale laboratory models and found to be generally small and geomembrane-
dependent (see Koerner and Wayne {79]). In high berms where higher stresses are gen-
erated, an auxiliary (or sacrificial) geomembrane rub-sheet over the crest of the berm
should effectively dissipate the stresses before they propagate down to the underlying
primary geomembrane.

5.6.9 Side Slope Subgrade Soil Stability

The design of the stability of the soil mass beneath the liner system of a solid-waste
landfill is carried out in exactly the same manner as was discussed for liquid contain-
ment (reservoir) slopes and berms (recall Section 5.3.5). The process carl include the
strength of the covering liner materials, but if they are not included in the analysis, the
error is on the conservative side. Interior berms, with or without geosynthetic inclu-
sions, are also handled in the same manner as previously described.

5.6.10 Multilined Side Slope Cover Soil Stability

The situation of a liner and its leachate collection cover soil stability, or slumping, be-
comes quite complicated for multilined geomembrane and geonet collection systems of
the type shown in Figure 5.40, Consider such a system, as shown in Figure 5.40e The
leachate collection system soil gravitationally induces shear stress through the system,
thereby challenging each of the interface layers that are in the cross section. If all of the
interface shear strengths are greater than the slope angle, stability is achieved and the
only deformation involved is a small amount to achieve elastic equilibrium (Wilson-
Fahmy and Koerner [80]). However, if any interface shear strengths are lower than the
slope angle, wide-width tensile stresses are induced into the overlying geosynthetics.
This can cause the failure of the geosynthetics or pullout from the anchor trench, or it
can result in quasistability via tensile reinforcement. If the last is the case, w'can refer
to the overlying geosynthetics as acting as nonintentional veneer reinforcement.
If the situation consists of the double liner system shown in Figure 5.45, all of the
interface surfaces can be made quite stable by proper selection of the geosynthetics.


Sec. 5.6 Solid Material (Landfill) Liners 55i

Figure 5.45 Geotexlile/geomernbranelgeonet eoinpositelgcomembrane above a

CCL or GCL.

For example, textured geoinembranes could be selected, and these together with non-
, woven needle-punched geotextiles will usually result in peak friction angles in excess
of 25°. Furthermore, by thermally bonding the geotextiles in the leak detection system
to the geonet, these surfaces are also stable at relatively high slope angles. Thus, the
critical interfaces are at the upper (leachate collection sand or gravel) and the lower
(CCL or GCL) surfaces. The upper surface is analyzed exactly as described in Section
3.2.7 for the case without geogrid reinforcement. The proper selection of cover soil
against a nonwoven needle-punched geotextile (acting as a protection material, recall
Section 5.6.7) should also result in a peak friction angle in excess of 25°.This leaves the
lower surface of the secondary geomembrane against the clay liner as being the poten-
tially low-interface surface. If the clay liner is a CCL, the concern is with the expelled
consolidation water lubricating the interface. This surface has been involved in a major
failure of a hazardous waste liner system, as reported by Byrne et al. [81] with an inter-
face friction angle of 10°. If the liner is a GCL, the concern is the hydrated bentonite
being extruded out of the upper geotextile and lubricating the interface with an inter-
face friction angle of 5 to 10°. This surface was involved in two slides of full-scale field
tests both involving woven geotextiles on the GCL, by Daniel et a]. [82].
The analysis of multilined slopes of the type being discussed is a direct extension
of the veneer reinforcement model presented in Section 3.2.7 on geogrids. Recalling
Figure 3.22b, the analysis results in equation (3.21):
a(FS)2 + b(FS) + c = 0

where

a= (V6A-NA cospTsinp)cos(3,
b = -[(WA -- NA cos ( 3 - T sin 13) sin ;3 tan + (N tan 8 + Ca) sin p cos p
+ sin p(C' + Wp tan (k)], and
c = (NA tan 8 + Ca) sin2I3 tan 4,


552 Designing with Geo membranes Chap. 5

The resulting FS value is then obtained from equation (3.22):

-b+Vb2 -4ac
FS =
2a

The variables and values of WA, NA, T, and Wp were defined in Sections 3.2,7 and 5.3.5.
The critical parameter in the above equation is T, the allowable wide-width tension
strength of the geosynthetic layers above the potential failure surface, For the cross
section shown in Figure 5.45, T represents the allowable strength of all of the geosyn-
thetie materials above the critical interface, Not only is the issue of reduction factors
difficult to assess for the liner materials per se, but the issue of strain compatibility is
also unwieldy. In this latter regard, the wide-width tensile strength of each geosynthet-
ic material must be determined, plotted on the same axes, and assessed at a specific
value of strain, That is, the liner system components cannot act individually and must
act as an equally strained unit. Example 5.20 illustrates the situation.

Example 5.20
For a 30 m long slope at 3(11) to 1(i i.e., = 18.4° - lined with a double liner system
consisting of GT/GM!GC/GMICCL or GCL (as in Figure 5.45), the lowest friction angle is
assumed to be the secondary geomembrarte to the underlying clay interface, which is 10°.
All other interface friction angles are in excess of 18.4°.The wide-width tensile behavior of
the various candidate geosynthetics is given in the following graph.The leachate collection
cover soil is 450 nun thick with a unit weight of 18.0 kN/m' and a friction angle of 30°.
What is the factor of safety of the slope based on a cumulative reduction factor of 2.0?
Solution:
,_r L _ 1 tan 13
^^ ^^ h sing 2
1 - tan 18.4
= (18.0)(0,45)2 30 -
0.45 sin 184 2
= 3.65[63,3]
= 231 kNlnn
NA = WA cos p
= 231 cos 18,4
= 219 kNitn
_,h2
Wp
//= sin 213
/ (18.0)(0.45) 2
sin 36.8
= 6,03 kN/m
Tait taken at the first geosynthetic failure, which is the nonwoven needle-punched geotex-
tile at 25 k%silm, is
mil' e .4
T,,,1 = 25 + 2(22) + 36
= 105 kN/m


1013 JnC '"t''C (.09

C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. OF 9
50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: 7-P'‘--- DATE (obi, IU
CHECKED BY. DATE:
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

Tc

ui }

i I

hf _

7... -
CClcuta I .t -

c^^ HO -. Ig O?Ct

y Q.ti a
i
'r
h^j.( +'^h'Y+^x

I .^3 (L3


JOB / = - C ?&
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. . OF _

50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: 'rPt-"-. DATE: /d /^/! a

CHECKED BY: DATE: t
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

}7.
0,

= i )'00 CJ')

_AT

UbA'T
3

± -7

f 'O ' (4 fq .5i

1 1 1^ c

-7

-7
, I


C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. sif F, FT mo or

50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: DATE:
CHECK ED BY, DATE: (
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

__-
^^cv.,.

Lc: t

| ^ / !
'^-

JOB /VC t-r V - k ».i+ C ( %9()

C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. '`( Of
50 Century Hill Drive CALCULA 1 ED BY: DATE: 22 f ;(76--
CHECKED BY: DATE:
Latham, NY 12110 SCALE

'Cos Ct ^ ° = ,.5 L,,

1, 5 L, 4. 010

^ / \ 9,

...3.['. f 1955.. _. -

1,0 1 1-7

SNl aE7

Q'V s=.--

to: 1-7 CO,c?c-)

D C-1 . .-

E?G

0.117 : 4


10B /LL --I--

£,L F. l ^o
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. C7I •1 q

50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: 7L. DATE: 11//7J10

CHECKED BY: DATE:
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

77

I
--AT-- o

-E d3toay Calf)


JOB
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO.
CALCULATED BY:
50 Century Hill Drive
CHECKED BY:
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

--1 6P 4 c D)

-L. }. ^

|'~

| | ^ | |

9 1.9 ('5
--- --
r
'
l -^

l -~ -~ -

(p 9:-7 /An |f hJ./

° 4 | 7tu,^Cn . |
.

-_,


JOB AJ /'fq ✓ i^C_i.,

-
`3 !tJ
C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEEP NO. F

50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: QTY DATE; tnfJI o

CHECKED BY: DATE:
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

13'6,9 -t-_ `7 L-

a.. f

-
1 o uYl

C.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. - ^^ r•

-
50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: DATE: _1,2 , 9fOJT _
CHECKED BY: DATE: -
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

1 _. `?.al. Vic,-, _4..

-__

'7 -

r.^,

r,o
1 5 !. 7,3


iOB_
G.T. MALE ASSOCIATES, P.C. SHEET NO. - Or
50 Century Hill Drive CALCULATED BY: `'r✓l DATE: c) ;- !`
CHECKED $Y: DATE:
Latham, NY 12110
SCALE

,5'b/c