Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

A DEM analysis of geomembrane-lined landfill subject to vertical loading

Juan Hou a, *, Hao Li a, Lei Liu b, Shihan Wang a, Yuyang Teng a, Shifen Bao a
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Shanghai University, China
b
State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan 430071, China

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Particle flow code in three dimensions (PFC3D) is used to investigate the bearing capacity and mechanism of a
Geomembrane geomembrane-lined landfill under construction loading. The soils and the geomembranes are simulated by
PFC3D numerous balls and parallel bond, respectively. The initial states and loading processes of geomembrane-lined
Mechanism
soil are simulated by PFC3D method. The displacement vector diagram, the velocity vector diagram, the stress
Reinforcement
Vertical loading
and the porosity of soil were analyzed using the numerical models. The simulation results demonstrate that the
geomembranes keep the underneath soil particles from being displaced under the applied load and can distribute
the load uniformly over a wider area. The interface between soil particles and geomembranes, the displacement
vector, the contact force and the deformation of the geomembranes are also analyzed. The results showed that
the vertical loading affect strength-strain behavior of geomembranes. The contribution of radial displacements
on strain and, consequently, the stress crack and potential failure mechanism of geomembranes were analyzed.

1. Introduction
Geomembranes are geosynthetic materials used widely as hydraulic
barriers in waste containment facilities due to its impermeable to landfill
leachates (Chen et al., 2009; Chen et al., 2012; Jeon 2016; Sobti and
singh, 2016; Müller and Wöhlecke, 2017; Hou et al., 2017; Mirhaji et al.,
2019). However, the geomembrane is susceptible to damage under dy­
namic and static loadings during the construction phase or during the
service life cycle, which may cause unacceptably large indentations and
imprints or even holes and tears (Xu et al., 2007; Frost et al., 2012;
Hornsey and Wishaw, 2012; Brachman and Sabir, 2013; Müller, 2007;
Xue et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2019; Rowe et al., 2019). Reddy et al. (1996)
found that geomembrane samples had no apparent damage in the form
of tears or holes after construction, but the geomembrane samples
without a geotextile as a protective layer had surficial scratches and
dents. In addition, the compacted clay liner and sub-grade beneath the
geomembranes are softened in some areas, which may resulting in
different settlements due to the construction load or waste body mass
(Abdelaal et al., 2014; Gallagher et al., 2016; Saheli and Rowe, 2016; Xu
et al., 2008), which may lead to over stressing of lining components and
a loss of integrity (Yang et al., 2017; Kavazanjian et al., 2017; Rowe and
Shoaib, 2017; Eldesouky and Brachman, 2018; Yu et al., 2018). There­
fore, protecting the geomembrane from tearing or puncturing during
construction and after waste placement is critical for the entire liner
system to function properly (Reddy et al., 1996). Extensive research has
been conducted to analyze the behavior of geomembranes and calculate
tensile and interface stresses under various loading conditions (Fowmes,
2007; Laine et al., 1989; Motan et al., 1993; Saathoff et al., 1994;
Brummermann et al., 1994; Zanzinger, 1999). Many beneficial reports
using experimental and continuum numerical methods have already
been published (Nosko and Touze-Foltz, 2000; Giroudand Touze-Foltz,
2003; Zanzinger and Gartung, 1998; Gallagher et al., 1999). However,
the micro-mechanical interactions between geomembrane and soil is
still difficult to simulate and assess (Feng et al., 2018).
The discrete element method (DEM) has gained popularity in the
past few decades among geotechnical engineers involved in granular
soil-geosynthetics interaction problems (Schöpfer et al., 2007; Sun et al.,
2015; Shi et al., 2013; Yang et al., 2009; Effeindzourou et al., 2016; Chen
et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2016). Most recently, a few studies focused on
investigate soil-geomembrane interactions (Meidani et al., 2016a,b;
Jiang and Shu, 2004). Feng et al. (2018) simulated interface direct shear
test between geomembrane and sand. The effect of roughness of geo­
membrane surface on the shear behavior was investigated through force
chains. Meidani et al. (2016b) developed a coupled finite-discrete
framework to investigate the behavior of a gravel drainage layer
located above a HDPE geomembrane sheet and subject to moderate to
high normal stress conditions. The results showed that the deformation
of the geomembrane increased dramatically with the shearing

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: Juanhou@staff.shu.edu.cn (J. Hou).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.008

0266-1144/© 2020 Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Please cite this article as: Juan Hou, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.008
J. Hou et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

the stability and/or integrity of geomembrane-lined systems, however,

particularly rare tests or simulation were developed to investigate the
interaction behavior between a geomembrane liner and granular soil
subjected to construction loading or subsequent waste placement. From
this perspective, the aim of the investigations was essentially to simulate
experimental geomembrane-lined landfill subject to vertical loading
from the microcosmic of view using a three-dimensional DEM. The
displacement, the contact force, the stress distribution and the porosity
of the soil particles were discussed. The interfacial micro-reactions such
as the relative displacement between particles and the induced contact
forces chain of geomembrans were also investigated.

2. Brief overview of model tests

The tests tank is 0.6 m (width) × 1.4 m (length) × 1.1 m (depth) (Hou
et al., 2015, 2017; Li et al., 2018). The depth of sand bed is 0.8 m. A
HDPE geomembrane with dimensions of 0.6 m in width, 0.592 m in
length and 1.5 mm in thickness was embedded at the 0.045 m depth of
sand. A granular base system loaded with a 0.15 m width load plate
Fig. 1. Photography of model test.
(simulating surface wheel loads). It has beenfound that a zone of influ­
ence is no more than 0.05 m on both sides of the geosythetics rein­
forcement and about 0.15 m above and below the reinforcement during
this size loaded area (Tuncer et al., 2009; Craig et al., 2009; Eric, 2016;
Chevalier et al., 2011). Therefore, considering the time-effectiveness
and symmetry, an area 0.35 m (width) × 0.3 m (depth) from the cen­
ter of loading (marked in red solid line) in Fig. 1 is simulated by PFC3D in
the following subsections.

3. Numerical model

PFC3D simulation consists of an assembly of particles. It starts by

assuming some initial configuration of particle positions and then con­
tact detection module finds which set of particles are interacting. The
simulations then proceed based on Newton’s second law by stepping in
time (Mahmood and Elektorowicz, 2016). The numerical model tests
conducted in this study use similar materials with those in above model
experiments based on the following four steps. Firstly, five walls are
Fig. 2. Numerical model of PFC3D.
used to simulate the bottom and side boundary zone. Secondly, the soil
is characterized using the balls which generated randomly. The particle
displacement increase. Major indentation occurred on the geomembrane
size and friction coefficient, as suggested by Hou et al. (2016) is assumed
after applying the shear displacement. Wang et al. (2007) evaluated the
to be 0.04 m and 0.07 m, respectively. Thirdly, the geomembrane is
shear strength of interphase systems composed of granular materials and
characterized using parallel bonds which can transmit both a force and a
planar inclusions having various degrees of roughness using a
moment. Finally, vertical loading is modeled by creating a clump of the
two-dimensional discrete element methodology. The results showed that
desired plate like a rigid body. A typical numerical model is shown in
the sub-grade with low shear strength, resulting in extrusion of the soil
Fig. 2.
and local bearing failure, can add to the strains in the geomembrane
In PFC3D, trial-and-error method is often used to derive the micro
liners. Arab (2011) and Kavazanjian et al. (2014) developed a numerical
parameters (Itasca Consulting Group Inc, 2008; Zhou et al., 2015, 2016).
model for explicitly evaluating the forces and strains in geomembrane
After a large number of trial-and-error calculations, the micro parame­
liners subject to waste settlement and seismic loading. Although these
ters used in the PFC3D model are summarized in Table 1.
researches have provided useful information that can be used to assess
Fig. 3 represents the comparison of the pressure-settlement curves

Table 1
Micro parameters used in the PFC3D model.
parameters soil geomembrane Model box Compression plate

Normal stiffness (N/m) kn 5e5 6e7 5e5 5e6

Tangential stiffness (N/m) ks 5e5 1e7 5e5 5e6
Particle Density (kg/m3) dens 2630 3000 – 2000
Radius (m) rad 0.004 0.0025 – 0.005
friction coefficient fric 0.7 0.5 0.7 0
Normal contact bond strength (N) n_bond 0 1e4 – –
Tangential contact bond strength (N) s_bond 0 1e4 – –
Parallel bonding radius pb_rad 0 10 – –
Tangential parallel bond strength (Pa) pb_s 0 1e8 – –
Normal Parallel Bond Strength (Pa) pb_n 1e8
Tangential parallel bond stiffness (Pa/m) pb_ks 3e6
Normal Parallel Bond Stiffness (Pa/m) pb_kn 6e7

2
J. Hou et al.
Fig. 3. Pressure-settlement curve comparisons between numerical simulation
and model test.
obtained from experimental and numerical studies. The results matched
well with experiment data. Hence, the PFC3D model can be used to
investigate the interaction behavior between a geomembrane liner and
granular soil subject to vertical loading.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Soil displacement and velocity vector diagram
Fig. 4 presents the displacement and velocity vector diagram of soils
Fig. 4. Displacement and velocity distribution.
3
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx
at the surface pressure of 120 kPa. From Fig. 4a, it can be seen that the
sand particles from a distinct slip surface more easily in sand base.
However, at the same pressure, the displacement of geomembrane-lined
base is relatively small. The trend of vertical displacement of particles
under vertical loading is blocked. Soil particles move parallel to the
horizontal membrane (solid ellipse marked). In addition, there is nearly
no soil displacement of the soil under the geomembranes (dashed ellipse
marked). No distinct slip surface therefore is predicted. In this works,
geomembrane function as reinforcements to increase the resistance of
soils to shear stressed and as separation media (Santvoort, 1994). In
addition, as illustrated in Fig. 4b, the direction of the soil velocity (solid
ellipse marked) due to friction of loading plate and the geomembrane
changes rapidly in geomembrane-lined base. The dashed ellipses in
Fig. 4b also highlights the velocity of soil below the geomembranes is
very small.
4.2. Stress and contact force
As illustrated in Fig. 5, the stress is mainly concentrated in the area
directly below the loading plate, and gradually decreases with
increasing distance from the center of the loading. Comparing Fig. 5a to
b, the stress on geomembrane is about 60% of the point beneath the
center of the loading plate (solid ellipse marked). This may be due to the
deformation-mobilized tensile force of geomembrane. Geomembrane in
this application acts as a tension membrane reinforcement. Meanwhile,
the stress above the geomembrane is far smaller than below (dashed
ellipse marked).
Fig. 6 shows the contact force in a sand base. Fig. 6a shows that a
plate with sharp edges initially has only a small contact area on the sand.
Strong contact forces become dissipated rapidly beyond very small
distance from the center of loading plate (marked in arrow direction).
Thus, high concentrated contact force may develop generated by the
shear forces. Comparison of some difference states in 6a and 6 b, it can
J. Hou et al.
Fig. 5. Stress distribution.
Fig. 6. Contact force.
4
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx
be seen that the compressive stress load on the geomembrane is more
homogeneously distributed over the surface in Fig. 6b. The angles of
force chain are distinct from and generally larger than those in Fig. 6a
(marked in arrow direction). Meanwhile, the angle of the force chain
under the geomembranes is slightly deflected to the right. It was
confirmed, as in Reddy et al. (1996), which the sand mat prevents direct
contact of the construction equipment with the geomembrane liner, and
distributes the vehicular loading to a larger area, thus, reducing the
stresses on the geomembrane liner.
4.3. The porosity
Fig. 7 shows the change of porosity distribution before and after
loading in geomembrane lined base. The porosity is marginally higher in
the immediate interfacial zone after loading (within 10 particle di­
ameters of the interface, solid ellipse marked), as would be expected at
the interface between sand and the geomembrane surface. It should be
noted that the porosity decreased gently as the sliding or even very slight
plowing of particles into the geomembrane. This is in accordance with
the results of experimental research conducted by Frost et al. (2012).
Little variation in porosity can be found beyond 1.5 times the strip width
(solid ellipse marked).
4.4. Contact force and geomembrane deformation of geomemberane
A summary view of the internal force chains, deformation and the
distribution of mean contact force in the geomembrane at the different
loadings is shown in Fig. 8. Three cases (P = 40, 80 and 120 kPa) are
presented here. The force chains in the geomembrane are sensitive to the
vertical load. The geomembrane was both in tension and compression
under the bottom of loading plate initially. As the vertical load rises, the
compression stress decreases gradually. The development of concen­
trated force chains leads to a great develop of strong lateral force chains
in the vicinity. Relatively more and stronger lateral force chains exist
with sustained compression grows. The geomembrane therefore expe­
riences a plane state of stress. As a result, all local stress paths collapse to
the global one. At the macro scale, this may result in greater strain and
eventually reduces the tensile strength of the thin geomembrane. This
also means that local deformations in the geomembrane which develop
through creeping, embrittlement or stress cracking into holes or tears
are excluded. The results as shown in Fig. 9 also indicate that any
relative displacement is likely to increase the deformation and force in
the geomembrane. These absorbing local stress paths result from the
redistribution of internal forces. Therefore, as confirmed in Müller
(2007), it should be noted that the geomembrane and protective layer
must be considered together as the liner. An inadequate protection layer
leads to clear indentations and imprints in the geomembrane, and when
this happens, biaxial tensile stresses also arise in the geomembrane in
addition to the compressive stresses.
5. Conclusion
This research is under taken to investigate geomembrane-lined
landfills subject to construction loading from the microcosmic of view.
For this purpose, DEM analyses were conducted. The displacement and
velocity vector diagram, the stress and contact force, the porosity and
the deformation of geomembrane were analyzed. The simulation results
demonstrate that geomembrane function as reinforcement to increase
the resistance of soils to shear stressed and as separation media due to
the deformation-mobilized tensile force. The sand mat prevents direct
contact of the construction equipment with the geomembrane liner, and
redistributes the vehicular loading to a larger area. The compressive
stress therefore load on the geomembrane is more homogeneously
distributed over the surface. But meanwhile, tensile stresses develop and
the geomembrane experiences a plane state of stress. Protective layers
must be designed in such a way that the local strains resulting from
J. Hou et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 7. Porosity distribution of geomembrane-lined base.

Fig. 8. Contact forces on the geomembrane.

5
J. Hou et al. Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

indentations by objects with edges and points do not exceed the limiting
strain of geomembrane.

Acknowledgments

This study has been supported by the National Natural Science

Foundation of China (NSFC) (Nos. 51778353, 51978390), Open
Research Fund of State Key Laboratory of Geomechanics and Geotech­
nical Engineering, Institute of Rock and Soil Mechanics, Chinese Acad­
emy of Sciences (No. Z018007) and the Youth Innovation Promotion
Association CAS (2017376). The authors would like to express their
gratitude for this financial assistance.

References

Fig. 9. The deformation of Geomembranes.
Abdelaa, F.B., Rowe, R.K., Brachman, R.W.I., 2014. Brittle rupture of an aged HPDE
geomembrane at local gravel indentations under simulated field conditions.
Geotech. Int. 21 (1), 1–23.
Arab, M., 2011. The Integrity of Geosynthetic Elements of Waste Containment Barrier
Systems Subject to Seismic Loading. Ph.D. dissertation. Arizona State Univ., Tempe,
Arizona.
Brachman, R.W.I., Sabir, A., 2013. Long-term assessment of a layered-geotextile
protection layer for geomembranes. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 139 (5), 752–764.
Brummermann, K., Blumel, W., Stoewahse, C., 1994. Protection layers for
geomembranes: effectiveness and testing procedures. In: Proceedings of the Fifth
International Conference on Geotextiles. Geomembranes and Related Products,
Singapore, pp. 1003–1006.
Chen, C., McDowell, G.R., Thom, N.H., 2012. Discrete element modelling of cyclic loads
of geogrid-reinforced ballast under confined and unconfined conditions. Geotext.
Geomembranes 35, 76–86.
Chen, H.X., Liu, X., Feng, S.J., Chen, J.N., Zhang, D.M., Zhou, Annan, 2019. Microscale
investigation into mechanical behaviors of heat-bonded nonwoven geotextile using
DEM. Geotext. Geomembranes 47, 429–438.
Chen, Y.M., Gao, D., Zhu, B., 2009. Controlling strain in geosynthetic liner systems used
in vertically expanded landfills. J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng. 1 (1), 48–55.
Cheng, H.Y., Yamamoto, H., Thoeni, K., 2016. Numerical study on stress states and fabric
anisotropies in soilbags using the DEM. Comput. Geotech. 76, 170–183.
Chevalier, B., Villard, P., Combe, G., 2011. Investigation of load-transfer mechanisms in
geotechnical earth structures with thin fill platforms reinforced by rigid inclusions.
Int. J. Geomechanics 11 (3), 239–250.
Craig, S., Dante, F., Tuncer, B.E., 2009. Evaluation of the zone of influence and stiffness
improvement from geogrid reinforcement in granular materials. Transport. Res.
Record J. Transportation Res. Board 2116 (2116), 76–84.
Effeindzourou, A., Chareyre, B., Thoeni, K., Giacomini, A., Kneib, F., 2016. Modelling of
deformable structures in the general framework of the discrete element method.
Geotext. Geomembranes 44 (2), 143–156.
Eldesouky, H.M.G., Brachman, R.W.I., 2018. Calculating local geomembrane strains from
a single gravel particle with thin plate theory. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (1),
101–110.
Eric, J.S., 2016. Investigation of Structural Capacity of Geogrid-Reinforced Aggregate
Base Materials in Flexible Pavements. Ph.D. dissertation. M.S. Brigham Young
University, Provo.
Feng, S.J., Liu, X., Chen, H.X., Zhao, T., 2018. Micro-mechanical analysis of
geomembrane-sand interactions using DEM. Comput. Geotech. 94, 58–71.
Fowmes, G.J., 2007. Analysis of Steep-Sided Landfill Lining Systems. Eng. D.
dissertation. Loughborough University, London.
Frost, J.D., Kim, D., Lee, S.W., 2012. Microscale geomembrane-granular material
interactions. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering 16 (1), 79–92.
Gallagher, E.M., Darbyshire, W., Dixon, N., 1999. Performance testing of landfill
geoprotectors: background, critique, development and current UK practice. Geotech.
Int. 6 (4), 283–301.
Gallagher, E.M., Tonks, D.M., Shevelan, J., Belton, A.R., Blackmore, R.E., 2016.
Investigations of geomembrane integrity within a 25-year old landfill capping.
Geotext. Geomembranes 44 (5), 770–780.
Giroud, J.P., Touze-Foltz, N., 2003. Geomembranes in landfills: discussion at the 7th
international conference on geosynthetics. Geotech. Int. 10 (4), 124–133.
Hornsey, W.P., Wishaw, D.M., 2012. Development of a methodology for the evaluation of
geomembrane strain and relative performance of cushion geotextiles. Geotext.
Geomembranes 35, 87–99.
Hou, J., Zhang, M.-X., Zhang, T.T., Dai, Z.H., 2015. Vertical stress analysis and
calculations in horizontal-vertical reinforced foundation. Rock Soil Mech. 36 (10),
702–708.
Hou, J., Zhang, M.X., Dai, Z.H., Li, J.Z., Zeng, F.F., 2017. Bearing capacity of strip
foundations in horizontal-vertical reinforced soils. Geotext. Geomembranes 45,
29–34.
Hou, J., Zhang, M.X., Chen, Q., Wang, D., Javadi, J., Zhang, S.L., 2016. Failure-mode
analysis of loose deposit slope in Ya’an-Kangding Expressway under seismic loading
using particle flow code. Granul. Matter 18 (3), 1–11.
Itasca Consulting Group Inc, 2008. PFC2D-particle Flow Code in 2 Dimensions, User’s
Manual. Itasca, Minneapolis.

6
J. Hou et al.
Jeon, H.Y., 2016. Analysis of environmental applicability of HDPE geomembrane by
simulated applicability testing for waste containment construction. Front. Mater. 44
(3), 1–6.
Jiang, X.Z., Shu, Y.M., 2004. Probabilistic analysis of random contact force between
geomembrane and granular material. J. Cent. S. Univ. 21 (8), 3309–3315.
Kavazanjian, E., Arab, M., Matasovic, N., 2014. Performance-based design for seismic
design of geosynthetics-lined waste containment systems. Earthquake Geotech. Eng.
Design 363–385.
Kavazanjian, E., Gutierrez, A., 2017. Large-scale centrifuge test of a geomembrane-lined
landfill subject to waste settlement and seismic loading. Waste Manag. 68, 252–262.
Laine, D.L., Miklas, M.P., Parr, C.H., 1989. Loading point puncturability analysis of
geosynthetic liner materials. In: Proceeding Geosynthetics ’89 Conference. San
Diego, USA, pp. 478–488.
Li, J.Z., Li, H., Hou, J., 2018. An analytical model of the strip footing reinforced with
geogrid. Arab. J. Geosci. 11 (24), 227–237.
Mahmood, A.A., Elektorowicz, M., 2016. A review of discrete element method research
on particulate systems. Mater. Sci. Eng. 136, 012034.
Meidani, M., Meguid, M.A., Chouinard, L.E., 2016a. A calibration procedure for
modeling HDPE geomembrane using discrete element method. In: Proceedings of the
69th CGS Conference. Canada.
Meidani, M., Meguid, M.A., Chouinard, L.E., 2016b. Finite-discrete element analysis of
interface shear damage to HDPE geomembrane in contact with gravel drainage
layer. Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Discrete Element Methods,
pp. 351–359.
Mirhaji, V., Jafarian, Y., Baziar, M.H., Jafari, M.K., 2019. Seismic in-soil isolation of solid
waste landfill using geosynthetic liners: shaking table modeling of tehran landfill.
Int. J. Civ. Eng. 17 (2), 205–217.
Motan, E.S., Reed, L.S., Lundell, C.M., 1993. Geomembrane protection by nonwoven
geotextiles. In: Geosynthetics ’93 Conference, Vancouver. Canada, pp. 887–900.
Müller, W.W., 2007. HDPE Geomembranes in Geotechnics. 2007. Springer, Berlin,
Heidelberg.
Müller, W.W., Wöhlecke, A., 2017. Zero leakage? Landfill liner and capping systems in
Germany. Environ. Geotech. 6 (3), 162–170.
Nosko, V., Touze-Foltz, N., 2000. Geomembrane liner failure: modelling of its influence
on contaminant transfer. In: Proceedings of 2nd European Conference on
Geosynthetics, pp. 557–560. Bologna, Italy.
Reddy, K.R., Bandi, S.R., Rohr, J.J., Finy, M., Siebken, J., 1996. Field evaluation of
protective covers for landfill geomembrane liners under construction loading.
Geosynth. Int. 3 (6), 679–700.
Rowe, R.K., Shoaib, M., 2017. Long-term performance of high-density polyethylene
(HDPE) geomembrane seams in municipal solid waste (MSW) leachate. Can.
Geotech. J. 54 (12), 1623–1636.
Rowe, R.K., Morsy, M.S., Ewais, A.M.R., 2019. Representative stress crack resistance of
polyolefin geomembranes used in waste management. Waste Manag. 100, 18–27.
Saathoff, F., Sehrbrock, U., 1994. Indicators for selection of protection layers for
geomembranes. In: Proceeding of 5th International Conference on Geotextiles.
Geomembranes and Related Products, Singapore, pp. 1019–1022.
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx
Saheli, P.T., Rowe, R.K., 2016. Sorption and diffusion of bisphenol-A (BPA) through a
geosynthetic clay liner (GCL). Geotext. Geomembranes 44 (5), 731–738.
Santvoort, V.G.P.T.M., 1994. Geotextiles and Geomembranes in Civil Engineering. AA
Balkema Publishers.
Schöpfer, M.P.J., Childs, C., Walsh, J.J., 2007. Two-dimensional distinct element
modeling of the structure and growth of normal faults in multilayer sequences: 1.
Model calibration, boundary conditions, and selected results. J. Geophys. 112 (B10),
1–15.
Shi, C., Wang, S.N., Liu, L., 2013. Research of avalanche disaster numerical simulation
based on granular discrete element method of high-steep slope under seismic loads.
Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 32 (S1), 2798–2805 (in Chinese).
Sobti, J., Singh, S.K., 2016. Techno-economic analysis for barrier materials in landfills.
Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 11 (5), 467–478.
Sun, Z.L., Kong, L.W., Guo, A.G., Tian, H., 2015. Surface deformations and failure
mechanisms of deposit slope under seismic excitation. Rock Soil Mech. 32 (12),
3465–3472 (in Chinese).
Sun, X.C., Xu, Y., Liu, Y.Q., Nai, C.X., Dong, L., Liu, J.C., Huang, Q.F., 2019. Evolution of
geomembrane degradation and defects in a landfill: impacts on long-term leachate
leakage and groundwater quality. J. Clean. Prod. 224, 335–345.
Tuncer, E., Dante, F., Craig, S., 2009. Quantifying the Benefits of Geogrids for More
Durable Pavements. Wisconsin Highway Research Program. No. 0092-07-05.
Wang, J.F., Dove, J.E., Gutierrez, M.S., 2007. Anisotropy-based failure criterion for
interphase systems. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (5), 599–608.
Xu, S.F., Yang, Y., 2007. Analysis of results of large-scale tests on tensile force of HDPE
geomembrane placed on side slope in landfill. Chin. J. Rock Mech. Eng. 26 (Suppl. p
.2), 4343–4347 (in Chinese).
Xu, S.F., Zhang, H., Hu, M.Y., Imaizumi, S., 2008. Evaluation of tensile force of liner
system with the variation of height of incinerated ash. In: Proceedings of the 4th
Asian Regional Conference on Geosynthetics. Shanghai, China.
Xue, Q., Zhang, Q., Li, Z.Z., Xiao, K., 2013. The tension and puncture properties of HDPE
geomembrane under the corrosion of leachate. Materials 6 (9), 4109–4121.
Yang, P., Xue, S.B., Li, S., Zhu, X.W., 2017. Numerical simulation of geomembrane
wrinkle formation. Geotext. Geomembranes 45 (6), 697–701.
Yang, Q.H., Yao, L.K., Yang, M., 2009. Particle flow numerical simulation of landslip of
loose slope under seismic loading. J. Southwest Jiao Tong Univ. 44 (4), 580–584 (in
Chinese).
Yu, Y., Rowe, R.K., 2018. Modelling deformation and strains induced by waste settlement
in a centrifuge test. Can. Geotech. J. 55 (8), 1116–1129.
Zanzinger, H., 1999. Efficiency of geosynthetic protection layers for geomembrane liners:
performance in a large-scale model test. Geotech. Int. 6 (4), 303–317.
Zanzinger, H., Gartung, E., 1998. HDPE geopipes, soil-structure interaction. In:
Proceeding of Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics. Atlanta, GA, USA,
pp. 197–201.
Zhou, W., Yang, L.F., Ma, G., Chang, X.L., Cheng, Yg, Li, D.Q., 2015. Macro-micro
responses of crushable granular materials in simulated true triaxial tests. Granul.
Matter 17 (4), 497–509.
Zhou, W., Yang, L.F., Ma, G., Chang, X.L., Lai, Z.Q., Xu, K., 2016. DEM analysis of the size
effects on the behavior of crushable granular materials. Granul. Matter 18 (3), 1–11.