Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Dynamic shear behaviors of textured geomembrane/nonwoven geotextile

interface under cyclic loading
Ji-Yun Chang, Shi-Jin Feng *
Key Laboratory of Geotechnical and Underground Engineering of the Ministry of Education, Department of Geotechnical Engineering, Tongji University, Shanghai,
200092, China

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

Keywords: Textured geomembrane (GMB) and nonwoven geotextile (GTX) are usually used together in liner systems of
Geosynthetics MSW landfills, but the low shear strength of GMB/GTX interface is extremely detrimental to the stability of
Geomembrane landfills, especially under earthquake loading. To study the dynamic shear strength of the GMB/GTX interface, a
Geotextile
series of displacement-controlled cyclic direct shear tests are conducted with a large-scale direct shear machine.
Cyclic shear test
Dynamic shear strength
Normal stress levels ranging from 100 to 1000 kPa and displacement amplitudes ranging from 5 to 25 mm are
considered. To compare the failure mechanism, GMB and GTX specimens are tested in not only hydrated but also
dry conditions. Different waveforms and excitation frequencies are also applied to analyze the effects of test
conditions. It can be seen that the shear deformation develops totally along the GMB/GTX interface when
specimens are fully hydrated, while the internal failure of GTX is induced in dry condition. Equivalent linear
analyses reveal that the shear stiffness depends on normal stress and displacement amplitude, while the damping
ratio is only affected by displacement amplitude. Variations of shear strength during the shear process indicate
that the softening behavior of the GMB/GTX interface is closely related to cumulative displacement and normal
stress level. Furthermore, based on test results, a positive correlation is summarized between the shear strength
and displacement rate of the interface.

1. Introduction 2018). Therefore, to assess the seismic stability of landfills rationally, it

For modern municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills, liner systems are
strictly required to isolate the waste from natural surroundings. With the
development of geosynthetics, geomembrane (GMB) is widely used in
combination with compacted clay or geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) to
form a composite liner system (Qian et al., 2002; Feng et al., 2019b).
Specifically, to prevent possible puncture of GMB caused by the gravel or
geonet within the drainage layer, nonwoven geotextile (NW GTX) is
usually placed between GMB and drainage layer to work as a protective
layer. However, the relatively low shear strength of the GMB/GTX
interface may facilitate the formation of sliding surface, which means
great possibility of slope failure along this weak interface, for example
the failure of Kettleman Hills landfill (Mitchell et al., 1990; Koerner and
Soong, 2000; Feng and Lu, 2016). Moreover, since a lot of landfills locate
in seismic regions, the detrimental influence of GMB/GTX interface on
stability could be amplified under earthquake loading, and the damage
of Chiquita Canyon landfill induced by the Northridge earthquake in
1994 is a typical example (Augello et al., 1995; Kavazanjian et al.,
is extremely necessary to study the dynamic shear behaviors of the
GMB/GTX interface.
As the most common method to model the dynamic condition under
earthquake, a shaking table with a horizontal shear plane was originally
applied by Yegian and Lahlaf (1992) to evaluate the dynamic shear
strength of the interface between smooth GMB and NW GTX. Then, ef­
fects of some experimental conditions were considered by other re­
searchers (De and Zimmie, 1998; Park et al., 2004; Yegian and Kadakal,
2004), and it was uniformly revealed that the normal stress and the
excitation frequency did not influence the dynamic interface friction
angle significantly. To model the geosynthetic interface on side slope,
the horizontal shaking tables in above tests were replaced by shaking
tables with inclined shear plane, and the dependence of GMB/GTX
interface shear strength on relative sliding velocity and cumulative
displacement was discovered with this method (Carbone et al., 2015;
Pavanello et al., 2018). Noteworthily, the abovementioned tests mainly
focus on the smooth GMB/GTX interface, but textured GMB becomes
more common in engineering practice to ensure the stability of landfills.

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: 1610148@tongji.edu.cn (J.-Y. Chang), fsjgly@tongji.edu.cn (S.-J. Feng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.010

0266-1144/© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Ji-Yun Chang, Shi-Jin Feng, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.010
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng
Shear strength of smooth GMB/GTX interface is only the result of fric­
tion between geotextile fibers and GMB surface, while the mechanism is
totally different for textured GMB/GTX interface. Although the textured
interface has ever been tested by Pavanello et al. (2018) with shaking
table, the limited normal stress provided by the sliding body was not
enough to fully mobilize the hook and loop interaction between geo­
textile fibers and textured particles of GMB (Hebeler et al., 2005). The
significant difference in stress conditions between shaking table tests
and the true scale of landfill leads to the limitation of this test method.
Dynamic direct shear tests could overcome the above defect of
shaking table tests and provide stress levels similar to the pressure that
the liner systems are subjected to in practice, but higher requirements on
apparatus are proposed at the same time. In previous experiments on
GMB/GTX interface, the maximum displacement rate of monotonic
shear tests is 36.7 mm/min (Stark et al., 1996; Wasti and Ozdüzgün,
2001; Jones and Dixon, 2005; Seo et al., 2007; Fowmes et al., 2008;
Bacas et al., 2015), and the maximum excitation frequency of cyclic
shear tests is 0.25 Hz (De and Zimmie, 1998; Yegian and Kadakal, 2004;
Kim et al., 2005), which are both inadequate to model true earthquake
loading. Large dynamic direct shear machine enabling sinusoidal
loading equivalent to most earthquakes was developed by Fox et al.
(2006), but it has not been applied to the study of the GMB/GTX
interface. Therefore, the dynamic experimental study on the GMB/GTX
interface reflecting the stress state of liner systems under earthquake
loading is still vacant and urgently needed.
The primary objective of this study is to explore the dynamic shear
behaviors of the textured GMB/GTX interface in liner systems of MSW
landfills. With a large-scale dynamic shear machine, series of
displacement-controlled cyclic direct shear tests over a large range of
normal stresses are conducted. The shear stress-horizontal displacement
relationships, volume change behaviors, and shear strengths under cy­
clic loadings are analyzed. Furthermore, the effects of dynamic experi­
mental conditions, including dry condition, waveform, and excitation
frequency, are also investigated to deepen the understanding of the
GMB/GTX interface’s failure mechanism under earthquake.
2. Test method
2.1. Test materials and apparatus
Since textured GMBs are generally required on side slopes of landfills
to improve the shear resistance of liner systems and ensure stability
(Qian et al., 2002; Feng et al., 2019b), textured GMB/GTX interface is
the concentration of this study. To meet the requirement on specifica­
tions of liner systems in “Technical code for municipal solid waste
sanitary landfill” (GB 50869-2013) (Ministry of Housing and
Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China, 2013),
textured high-density polyethylene (HDPE) GMBs manufactured by GSE
(Suzhou, Jiangsu, China), whose thickness and density is 1.5 mm and
0.94 g/cm2 respectively, are used in this study. The textured particles
are sprayed and thermally bonded onto the surfaces of a smooth GMB to
form the textured surfaces. As for the GTX, the widely used
needle-punched NW GTXs with a density of 800 g/m2 are applied.
Cyclic direct shear tests on the GMB/GTX interface are performed
with the large-scale dynamic shear machine, which has been described
by Chang et al. (2018) and Shen et al. (2018) in detail. For current ex­
periments, particular gripping plates with numerous pyramids of 1 mm
height in the surface are fixed to upper and lower shear boxes, and the
GMB and GTX specimens are fixed to upper and lower gripping plates
respectively. This machine enables a maximum frequency of 5.0 Hz for
cyclic loading, and the test data could be documented for every 0.001 s,
which permits accurate measurement under cyclic loading.
2.2. Test procedures
The cyclic shear tests are carried out according to ASTM D5321
2
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx
(2014). GMB and GTX specimens are cut for 600 mm × 200 mm and 400
mm × 200 mm respectively to keep constant failure area during cyclic
shear tests. In liner systems, GTX is used as a protective layer between
the drainage layer and GMB, which means the GMB/GTX interface is
generally submerged in leachate in practice. To keep consistency with
the real condition as far as possible, GTX specimens are hydrated with
tap water for 24 h. Then, GMB and GTX specimens are transferred to the
test apparatus and fixed on gripping plates. The normal stress is applied
gradually with a constant rate of 100 kPa/min, and the specimens are
allowed to consolidate under the presupposed normal stress for 30 min,
which is deemed adequate for full consolidation due to the high
permeability of GTX (Bacas et al., 2015).
After consolidation, the lower shear box moves in a parallel direction
according to the dynamic loading pattern. To explore the dynamic shear
behaviors of hydrated GMB/GTX interface, a total of fifteen
displacement-controlled cyclic direct shear tests are conducted for three
normal stress levels (σ n = 100, 500, 1000 kPa) and five displacement
amplitudes (A = 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 mm). Considering that 1000 kPa is
almost comparable to the pressure induced by 80 m-thick waste, the
applied normal stress range is adequate to cover the pressures that the
liner systems of most landfills are subjected to. Besides, the different
displacement amplitudes adopted in this study will facilitate the un­
derstanding of the dynamic failure mechanism, since the amplitude of
earthquake loadings varies in a large range. The cyclic loading is a si­
nusoidal waveform with a frequency of 1.0 Hz continuing for 60 cycles,
which is deemed appropriate to simulate the intension and duration of
general earthquake loadings. Besides, monotonic shear tests under cor­
responding normal stress levels (σ n = 100, 500, 1000 kPa) are also
conducted for comparison, and the displacement rate is 1.0 mm/min,
which is considered appropriate to model the static shear condition (Fox
and Stark, 2015). Furthermore, cyclic shear tests considering the effects
of different test conditions, including dry condition, different wave­
forms, and different excitation frequencies, are performed, which will be
discussed specifically in section 4.
3. Shear behaviors of hydrated GMB/GTX interface
3.1. Failure characteristics
Representative GMB and GTX specimens before and after the cyclic
shear test (σn = 1000 kPa, A = 10 mm) in hydrated conditions are shown
in Fig. 1(a) and (b) respectively. Comparison between Fig. 1(a) and (b)
indicates that the textured surface of GMB is significantly polished
during the cyclic shear process. Geotextile fibers on the surface are
colored black, which demonstrates that the thermally-bonded particles
are peeled off from the GMB surface and hooked into the voids of geo­
textile fibers. Furthermore, there was a sensible rise of temperature on
the failure surfaces after tests, which is in agreement with the severe
abrasion of GMB and GTX materials as shown in Fig. 1(b).
3.2. Shear stress-horizontal displacement relationship
The relationships between shear stress and horizontal displacement
for different normal stress levels are all shown in Fig. 2, which is char­
acterized by hysteretic loops with similar shapes and different sizes. It is
well illustrated that the maximum positive and negative shear stress
values are almost the same for different displacement amplitudes,
indicating that the shear strength of the GMB/GTX interface under cyclic
is generally independent on displacement amplitude. However, the
degradation degrees of hysteretic loops during the shear process are
apparently affected by normal stress levels. For σ n = 100 kPa, the
variation of the size of hysteretic loops with the increase of cyclic
number is not obvious, but the declination of the maximum shear stress
for every loop is significant for the other two normal stress levels.
Considering that the degradation of the hysteretic loops is the result of
the abrasion of materials and polish of the interface, the
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 1. GMB and GTX specimens (σn = 1000 kPa, A = 10 mm): (a) before test;
(b) after test in hydrated condition; (c) after test in dry condition.

abovementioned difference can be explained by the fact that higher

normal stress leads to higher shear stress and consequently higher
accumulative shear work on the interface.
To explore the shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships at
the beginning stage specifically, representative results (σ n = 1000 kPa)
are shown in Fig. 3 in combination with the monotonic shear test data
under the same normal stress. Although the maximum shear stress of the
monotonic shear test is relatively high, there is no significant difference
in maximum shear stress for different displacement amplitudes. How­
ever, there displays an obvious difference in shear stiffness. Higher
displacement amplitude means a higher displacement rate, and the
constant rate of 1.0 mm/min in the monotonic shear test is the lowest
displacement rate among all cases included in Fig. 3. Therefore, a cor­
relation that higher displacement rates induce lower shear stiffnesses
can be concluded. Since higher displacement amplitude indicates dy­ Fig. 2. Shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships: (a) σn = 100 kPa; (b)
namic loading with higher intensity, the risk of landfill’s larger defor­ σn = 500 kPa; (c) σn = 1000 kPa.
mation along the GMB/GTX interface under stronger earthquakes is
revealed in Fig. 3, which partly explains the phenomena of Chiquita in Fig. 4, where a positive value of vertical displacement means volume
Canyon landfill in Northridge earthquake (Augello et al., 1995). contraction. As the contraction of HDPE GMB is generally negligible
(Fox and Ross, 2010), the uniform contraction behavior in Fig. 4 can be
3.3. Volume change behavior mainly attributed to the compaction of voids on GMB/GTX interface and
within GTX (Bacas et al., 2015). It is consistent in Fig. 4 that the vertical
Since the area of the shear plane keeps constant during the shear displacement is more significant during the 1st cycle, and the contrac­
process, volume change could be characterized by the measured vertical tion becomes inconspicuous after several cycles. However, the vertical
displacement. Typically, the variations of vertical displacement with displacement value is influenced by displacement amplitude, and higher
horizontal displacement during shear tests for σ n = 1000 kPa are shown displacement amplitude induces larger vertical deformation, which can

3
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

et al., 1998; Nye and Fox, 2007; Vieira et al., 2013; Wang et al., 2016).
The hysteretic loop of shear stress-horizontal displacement relationship
is characterized by secant shear stiffness (K) and damping ratio (D), and
the corresponding calculation method has been presented in detail in the
literature (Yegian et al., 1998; Wang et al., 2016).
The maximum shear stresses of different cycles are plotted against
displacement amplitudes in Fig. 6, which are usually called backbone
curves and provide a reasonable characterization of material stiffness. It
is well illustrated that displacement amplitude of 5 mm is enough to
reach the peak shear stress for all backbone curves, which demonstrates
that the required shear displacement to fully mobilize the shear strength
of hydrated GMB/GTX interface is less than 5 mm in this study. This
value agrees with results of most previous tests on GMB/GTX interfaces
(δp in Table 1) but is significantly lower than the values from Seo et al.
(2007) and Fowmes et al. (2008), which can be ascribed to the differ­
ence in manufactures of materials. The comparison between different
cycles indicates that the degradation of shear stiffness of the GMB/GTX
interface is generally not obvious under cyclic loading. Especially,
Fig. 3. Comparison of shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships be­ compared with other two normal stress levels, there is little variation of
tween cyclic and monotonic shear tests for σn = 1000 kPa. shear stiffness with the increase of cycles for normal stress of 100 kPa,
which is due to that the textured particles on GMB surface and geotextile
be ascribed to the fact that the original pore structure of GTX, as well as fibers are not hooked together tightly under low normal stress and
the voids formed by textured particles on GMB surface and geotextile
fibers on the interface, will be certainly destroyed to a more severe
degree by the dynamic loadings with a higher displacement amplitude.
To analyze above rules quantificationally, the final vertical dis­
placements induced by cyclic loading for different displacement am­
plitudes and normal stresses are summarized in Fig. 5. During the shear
stage, there is a negative correlation between vertical displacement and
normal stress that higher normal stress, lower vertical displacement,
which is due to that during the consolidation stage the specimens have
been compacted to a higher degree under higher normal stress and
therefore the spaces for contraction have become smaller. As discussed
before, the influence of displacement amplitude is significant for every
normal stress level. However, if A ≥ 15 mm, its effect on vertical
displacement is no longer apparent, which indicates that displacement
amplitude of 15 mm almost induces complete destruction of the original
pore structure.

3.4. Equivalent linear analysis

Equivalent linear analysis method, which is originally proposed for

natural soils (Idriss and Seed, 1968), is widely used to describe the dy­
Fig. 5. The final vertical displacements of hydrated GMB/GTX specimens.
namic response of geosynthetic interface under cyclic loading (Yegian

Fig. 4. Relationships between the vertical and horizontal displacements for σ n = 1000 kPa: (a) A = 5 mm; (b) A = 10 mm; (c) A = 15 mm; (d) A = 20 mm; (e) A =
25 mm.

4
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

displacement amplitude, the shear stiffness decreases with the increase

of displacement amplitude, which is the result of the negative correla­
tion between shear stiffness and displacement rate as discussed in sec­
tion 3.2.
The shape of the hysteretic loop is described by damping ratio (D) in
equivalent linear analysis, and damping ratios against displacement
amplitudes are shown in Fig. 7(c) and (d). There is no significant cor­
relation between normal stress and damping ratio, while the depen­
dence of damping ration on displacement amplitude is well reflected,
which is similar to the results of previous experimental studies on geo­
synthetic interfaces (Nye and Fox, 2007; Vieira et al., 2013). As for the
difference between the 1st and 10th cycle, the damping ratio values of
the 10th cycle are generally higher, which reveals that the hysteretic
behavior of GMB/GTX interface becomes increasingly obvious during
the cyclic shear process.

3.5. Shear strength

In this study, the peak shear strength is the maximum shear stress
during the whole shear process, while the residual shear strength refers
to the maximum shear stress of the last cycle. The effects of displacement
amplitude on peak and residual shear strengths are explored in Fig. 8(a)
and (b) respectively. According to Fig. 8(a), there is no obvious effect of
displacement amplitude on the peak shear strength which is in fact
governed by the full shear resistance of the GMB/GTX interface. Simi­
larly, the residual shear strength for A ≥ 10 mm is also generally inde­
pendent on displacement amplitude as shown in Fig. 8(b). The
displacement amplitude of 5 mm corresponds to higher residual shear
strength values for σ n = 500 and 1000 kPa, which may be attributed to
that the cumulative displacement for A = 5 mm is inadequate to reach
the final softening state under the two normal stress levels.
The peak and residual shear strengths of cyclic shear tests are sum­
marized in Fig. 9(a) and (c) respectively together with the static shear
strength envelop through regression of data from monotonic shear tests.
It is obvious that the static shear strength envelops fit well with most test
data of cyclic shear tests, indicating that the shear resistance and soft­
ening mechanism of the GMB/GTX interface under static and dynamic
conditions are similar. Results in Fig. 10(a) and (c) also demonstrate that
it is generally appropriate to estimate the dynamic shear strengths of the
GMB/GTX interface with static shear strength envelops. Besides, peak
and residual shear strength data of textured GMB/GTX interface from
the literature (Table 1) are summarized in Fig. 10(b) and (d) respec­
tively, where the static shear strength envelops from this study are also
displayed for lateral comparison. The static peak shear strength envelop
is among test results in the literature, but residual shear strengths from
the literature generally fall below the static residual shear strength
envelop of this study. Apart from the difference in test materials, direct
shear tests presented in Fig. 10(d) are all conducted in dry condition,
which may lead to a higher degree of abrasion on interface materials and
relatively low residual shear strength as a result.

3.6. Softening mechanism

Post-peak strength ratios, the ratio of residual shear strength to peak

shear strength, are calculated and summarized in Table 2 to analyze the
Fig. 6. Backbone curves for different loading cycles: (a) σ n = 100 kPa; (b) σ n =
500 kPa; (c) σ n = 1000 kPa.
dynamic softening mechanism of the GMB/GTX interface. For the effect
of displacement amplitude, the average values of the post-peak strength
ratio (the green zone) almost keep constant except the case for A = 5
consequently the materials are damaged slightly.
mm. Since different displacement amplitude means different cumulative
To analyze the effects of normal stress and displacement amplitude
displacement which affects the softening behavior of geosynthetic
specifically, the shear stiffnesses of the 1st and 10th cycles are plotted in
interface (Seo et al., 2004; Basudhar 2010; Feng et al., 2018), it can be
Fig. 7(a) and (b) as the 1st cycle represents the initial state and the 10th
summarized that the cumulative displacement induced by cyclic loading
cycle characterizes the stable response under cyclic loading. It is sig­
with an amplitude of 10 mm continuing for 60 cycles is enough to finish
nificant that higher normal stress, higher shear stiffness, due to the
the softening behavior of GMB/GTX interface. As for the effect of normal
stronger interaction between textured particles and geotextile fibers on
stress, higher normal stress leads to stronger interaction on the interface
the interface under higher normal stress. As for the effect of
as discussed previously, which consequently contributes to the

5
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Table 1
Shear tests on GMB/GTX interfaces reported in the literature.
Test method GMB/GTX type σn (kPa) S (m2) Test conditions μ δp (mm) Sources

Shaking table test Smooth/NW 8.5–13.6 0.81 × 0.91 f = 2, 5, 10 Hz 0.17–0.24 / Yegian and Lahlaf (1992)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 12–285 π × (0.052-0.0352) R = 0.029–36.7 mm/min 0.26–0.57 4–8 Stark et al. (1996)
Cyclic shear test Smooth/NW 20.7–41.4 0.3 × 0.3 f = 0.25 Hz 0.18–0.22 / De and Zimmie (1998)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 111–400 0.3 × 0.3 R = 18 mm/mm 0.53 2–4 Wasti and Ozdüzgün (2001)
Cyclic shear test Smooth/NW 3–33 1.2 × 1.8 f = 0.25 Hz; A = 25 mm 0.15–0.3 / Yegian and Kadakal (2004)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 25–200 0.3 × 0.3 R = 3 mm/mm 0.23–0.46 4–6 Jones and Dixon (2005)
Cyclic shear test Smooth/NW 7.04–63.31 0.76 × 0.4 f = 0.003–0.1 Hz 0.29–0.32 1–2 Kim et al. (2005)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 6–154 0.3 × 0.3 R = 1 mm/mm 0.31–0.39 10–40 Seo et al. (2007)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 10–50 0.3 × 0.3 R = 1 mm/mm 0.34–0.56 20–30 Fowmes et al. (2008)
Monotonic shear test Textured/NW 25–450 0.3 × 0.285 R = 5 mm/mm 0.16–0.33 4–10 Bacas et al. (2015)
Shaking table test Smooth/NW 0.08–12 0.35 × 0.2 f = 1.5–6.0 Hz 0.21–0.33 / Carbone et al. (2015)
Shaking table test Textured/NW 5 0.35 × 0.2 f = 1.5–6.0 Hz 0.35–0.47 / Pavanello et al. (2018)

Note: NW = nonwoven; σ n = normal stress; S = specimen size; R = displacement rate; f = frequency of dynamic loading; A = displacement amplitude of dynamic
loading; μ = friction coefficient; δp = displacement to mobilize peak shear strength.

Fig. 7. Equivalent linear parameters: (a) shear stiffnesses of the 1st cycle; (b) shear stiffnesses of the 10th cycle; (c) damping ratios of the 1st cycle; (d) damping ratios
of the 10th cycle.

decreasing trend of post-peak strength ratio with normal stress in is the maximum shear stress of each cycle normalized by normal stress, is
Table 2 (the blue zone). plotted against cumulative displacement in Fig. 10. Since the above
Furthermore, to compare the dynamic softening behaviors of GMB/ analysis on the post-peak strength ratio proves that the softening degrees
GTX interface from different experiments, the friction coefficient, which are similar for A ≥ 10 mm, only the test data for A = 25 mm are

6
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

4. Effects of test conditions

4.1. Effect of dry condition

Since the liner system on the side slope of a landfill is in relatively dry
condition above the leachate level, the GMB/GTX interface may be
sheared in dry condition. Therefore, cyclic shear tests on dry specimens
for three normal stress levels (σn = 100, 500, 1000 kPa) and two
displacement amplitudes (A = 10, 20 mm) are conducted, and repre­
sentative specimens after test are shown in Fig. 1(c). Fig. 1(b) indicates
that failure develops totally along the GMB/GTX interface for hydrated
specimens, but internal failure of GTX is induced for dry condition. Lack
of the lubricating effect of water leads to stronger hook and loop inter­
action between textured particles on GMB surface and geotextile fibers,
resulting in that shear displacement develops within GTX and conse­
quently, geotextile fibers are torn.
The shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships of dry speci­
mens are plotted together with test results of hydrated specimens in
Fig. 11, where the hysteretic loops of dry and hydrated specimens
display similar shapes. It is also illustrated that the peak shear strengths
of dry specimens are slightly higher than that of hydrated specimens,
which means it is generally conservative to estimate the dynamic shear
strength of GMB/GTX interface with results of cyclic shear tests con­
ducted in wet condition. Apart from abovementioned failure mecha­
nism, there is a major difference in vertical displacement between dry
and hydrated specimens. According to Fig. 12, the vertical displace­
ments of dry specimens are obviously higher than those of hydrated
specimens, which can be explained in two aspects. On the one hand, due
to the lubricating effect of water, the frictional forces between geotextile
fibers of hydrated specimens are relatively low, and therefore the hy­
drated specimens reach a denser state than dry specimens during the
consolidation stage, which means larger contractive space for dry
specimens in the shear stage. On the other hand, as shown in Fig. 1(b)
and (c), severe internal damage of GTX is only observed for dry condi­
tion. Hence, the original pore structure of GTX is destroyed more seri­
ously in dry condition, which consequently provides larger space for
compaction.

4.2. Effect of waveform

Apart from sinusoidal waveform, triangular and square waveforms

with the same displacement amplitude and frequency (A = 10 mm, f =
1.0 Hz) are also considered in this study to explore the effect of wave­
Fig. 8. Effects of displacement amplitudes and normal stresses on the (a) peak
and (b) residual shear strengths.
form. The different waveforms are presented in Fig. 13(a), and corre­
sponding results of shear stress and vertical displacement for the first 5
cycles are displayed in Fig. 13(b) and (c) respectively. Apart from a little
displayed for clarity. Although there is significant difference in friction
difference in vertical displacement, it is obvious that waveform has an
coefficient values due to the difference in materials, the trend that the
insignificant effect on the cyclic shear behavior of the GMB/GTX inter­
friction coefficients reach constant values after a cumulative displace­
face, which is similar to the results of other geosynthetic interfaces (Nye
ment of around 1 m is consistent for test results from De and Zimmie
and Fox, 2007). The generally consistent maximum shear stresses for
(1998), Yegian and Kadakal (2004), Kim et al. (2005) and this study.
different waveforms in Fig. 13(b) demonstrate that it is reasonable to
However, the variation of friction coefficient with cumulative
explore the dynamic shear strength of the GMB/GTX interface under
displacement continues for about 6 m in tests conducted by Pavanello
earthquake loading with an ideal sinusoidal waveform.
et al. (2018). According to Table 1, Pavanello et al. (2018) conducted
shaking table tests with a normal stress of 5 kPa, while other experi­
4.3. Effect of excitation frequency
mental studies contained in Fig. 10 are all cyclic shear tests enabling
normal stress higher than 20 kPa at least. Therefore, different softening
To explore the effect of excitation frequency, cyclic loadings with
rules shown in Fig. 10 could be ascribed to the difference in test con­
unified displacement amplitude and different frequencies (A = 10 mm, f
ditions. Results of shaking table tests are valuable for geosynthetic in­
= 0.2, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0 Hz) are applied to hydrated GMB/GTX interfaces.
terfaces within cover systems as they are subjected to relatively low
Typically, the shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships of the
normal stress in practice. However, for the interfaces within liner sys­
1st and 10th cycles are shown in Fig. 14(a) and (b) respectively. There is
tems, modeling of the high normal stress provided by above waste mass
almost no difference in maximum shear stress values, indicating the
is necessary and therefore cyclic shear tests are recommended.
insignificant effect of excitation frequency on dynamic shear strength.
When it comes to the shape of hysteretic loops, it is obvious that the
dynamic response of the GMB/GTX interface is closer to a linear elastic
material under cyclic loading with higher frequency.

7
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 9. Comparison of shear strengths: (a) peak shear strengths of this study; (b) peak shear strengths from the literature; (c) residual shear strengths of this study; (d)
residual shear strengths from the literature.

Table 2
Effects of displacement amplitude and normal stress on post-peak strength
ratios.
Amplitude (mm) Post-peak strength ratio

σn = 100 kPa σn = 500 kPa σn = 1000 kPa Average

5 0.92 0.89 0.85 0.89

10 0.77 0.69 0.64 0.70
15 0.79 0.73 0.65 0.72
20 0.80 0.67 0.66 0.71
25 0.70 0.70 0.71 0.70
Average 0.80 0.74 0.70 0.74

To analyze the effects of excitation frequencies on hysteretic loops

quantificationally, the variations of equivalent linear parameters (K and
D) with the increase of shear cycles are displayed in Fig. 15. According to
Fig. 15(a), the decreasing trends of shear stiffness due to softening effect
are similar for all excitation frequencies, but there is minor difference in
values because of the difference in shear displacement rate. As for the
damping ratios in Fig. 15(b), higher excitation frequency, lower damp­
ing ratio values, which explains the approximately linear response under
Fig. 10. Variation of the friction coefficient with cumulative displacement of
the GMB/GTX interface.
high frequency shown in Fig. 14. Noteworthily, for f = 0.2 and 0.5 Hz,
the difference in damping ratio is negligible, but for f > 0.5 Hz, the

8
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 12. Comparison of the vertical displacement induced by cyclic loadings

between dry and hydrated specimens.

Fig. 11. Comparison of shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships be­

tween dry and hydrated specimens: (a) σ n = 100 kPa; (b) σ n = 500 kPa; (c) σn =
1000 kPa.

influence of excitation frequency becomes significant. Due to the con­

stant displacement amplitude, different frequencies generate different
displacement rate on the interface. Since the frequency of 0.5 Hz cor­
responds to an average displacement rate (= 4Af) of 20 mm/s, it can be
concluded that the dynamic response of the GMB/GTX interface is more Fig. 13. Test results of the first five cycles for different wave forms: (a) hori­
sensitive to the shear displacement rate higher than 20 mm/s. zontal displacement; (b) shear stress; (c) vertical displacement.
Furthermore, it has been revealed in previous shaking table tests that

9
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx

Fig. 14. Comparison of shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships for Fig. 15. Variations of (a) shear stiffnesses and (b) damping ratios during shear
different excitation frequencies: (a) the 1st cycle; (b) the 10th cycle. tests with different excitation frequencies.

the interface shear strength is closely related to sliding velocity (Mendez

et al., 2012; Carbone et al., 2015; Pavanello et al., 2018). The sliding
velocity in shaking table tests and the shear displacement rate in direct
shear tests are the same in describing the relative movement state of the
two interface materials. Hence, to explore a unified relationship be­
tween the dynamic shear strength of GMB/GTX interface and displace­
ment rate, the friction coefficients from some literature (Table 1) and
this study are all plotted against displacement rates in Fig. 16. Although
friction coefficients are different in values, there is a unified correlation
that the friction coefficient increases with displacement rate. Due to the
existence of hook and loop interactions on the textured GMB/GTX
interface (Hebeler et al., 2005; Fowmes et al., 2017), the macroscopic
shear strength is provided by not only frictional force but also tension of
some hooked geotextile fibers on the interface. As revealed in previous
studies, higher strain rate generally induces higher tensile stress within
geosynthetics (Boyle et al., 1996; Ridruejo et al., 2011; Feng et al.,
2019a). Therefore, the rise of friction coefficient with displacement rate
can be attributed to the increasing tensile force within geotextile fibers
on the interface. However, the effect of displacement rate on friction
Fig. 16. Correlation between the friction coefficient and displacement rate of
coefficient is insignificant for displacement rate lower than 10 mm/min
the GMB/GTX interface.

10
J.-Y. Chang and S.-J. Feng
(Fig. 16), which means the shear strength of the GMB/GTX interface is
mainly influenced by relatively high displacement rate.
5. Conclusions
GMB/GTX interface is a typical weak interface in the liner system of
MSW landfill, and its dynamic shear strength is of vital importance for
the stability of landfills in seismic zones. In this study, a series of
displacement-controlled cyclic direct shear tests on the GMB/GTX
interface is conducted. Effects of normal stress level and displacement
amplitude on shear stress-horizontal displacement relationships, volume
change behaviors, equivalent linear parameters, and shear strengths are
explored. Furthermore, the effects of dynamic experimental conditions,
including dry condition, waveform, and excitation frequency, are also
investigated. Some major conclusions are drawn as follows:
(1) The lubricating effect of pore water facilitates the development of
shear deformation along the GMB/GTX interface, and cyclic
loading results in the peeling of textured particles on the GMB
surface and significantly polishes the interface. For tests con­
ducted in dry condition, internal failure of GTX is induced due to
the tear of geotextile fibers.
(2) Volume contraction due to compaction of voids and fracture of
geotextile fibers is influenced by displacement amplitude and
normal stress. For equivalent linear analysis, the secant shear
stiffness of the GMB/GTX interface is also dependent on both
normal stress and displacement amplitude, while the damping
ratio is only affected by displacement amplitude.
(3) The static shear strength envelops fit well with peak and residual
shear strengths from cyclic shear tests, which means a similar
softening mechanism for the static and dynamic conditions. Be­
sides, the softening behavior of GMB/GTX interface is not only
related to cumulative displacement but also affected by normal
stress level.
(4) The dynamic shear behavior of GMB/GTX interface is influenced
by the displacement rate. Generally, the increase of displacement
rate induces a slight rise of shear strength, but the relationship is
insignificant for displacement rate lower than 10 mm/min.
Acknowledgments
Much of the work described in this paper was supported by the Na­
tional Natural Science Foundation of China under Grant Nos. 41725012
and 41931289. The writers would like to greatly acknowledge all these
financial supports and express their most sincere gratitude. The authors
also want to thank Dr. Y. Shen for his work in test apparatus. In addition,
the GMB materials are provided by GSE in Suzhou, China, and this
support is gratefully acknowledged.
References
ASTM D5321, 2014. Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and
Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by Direct Shear Method.
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA.
Augello, A.J., Matasovic, N., Bray, J.D., Kavazanjian, E., Seed, R.B., 1995. Evaluation of
solid waste landfill performance during the Northridge earthquake. Geotech. Spec.
Publ. 54, 17–50.
Bacas, B.M., Cañizal, J., Konietzky, H., 2015. Frictional behaviour of three critical
geosynthetic interfaces. Geosynth. Int. 22 (5), 355–365.
Basudhar, A.P.K., 2010. Modeling of soil-woven geotextile interface from direct shear
test results. Geotext. Geomembranes 28 (4), 403–408.
Boyle, S.R., Gallagher, M., Holtz, R.D., 1996. Influence of strain rate, specimen length
and confinement on measured geotextile properties. Geosynth. Int. 3 (2), 205–225.
Carbone, L., Gourc, J.P., Carrubba, P., Pavanello, P., Moraci, N., 2015. Dry friction
behaviour of a geosynthetic interface using inclined plane and shaking table tests.
Geotext. Geomembranes 43 (4), 293–306.
Chang, J.Y., Feng, S.J., Shen, Y., Shi, H., Shi, J.L., 2018. Experimental study of shear
strength of geosynthetic clay liner for monotonic loading. In: Proceedings of the 8th
International Congress on Environmental Geotechnics Volume 2. ICEG 2018.
Environmental Science and Engineering. Springer, Singapore, pp. 641–648.
11
Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (xxxx) xxx
De, A., Zimmie, T.F., 1998. Estimation of dynamic interfacial properties of geosynthetics.
Geosynth. Int. 5 (1–2), 17–39.
Feng, S.J., Chang, J.Y., Chen, H.X., 2018. Seismic analysis of landfill considering the
effect of GM-GCL interface within liner. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 107, 152–163.
Feng, S.J., Chang, J.Y., Chen, H.X., Zhang, D.M., 2019a. Numerical analysis of
earthquake-induced deformation of liner system of typical canyon landfill. Soil
Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 116, 96–106.
Feng, S.J., Chang, J.Y., Shi, H., Zheng, Q.T., Guo, X.Y., Zhang, X.L., 2019b. Failure of an
unfilled landfill cell due to an adjacent steep slope and a high groundwater level: a
case study. Eng. Geol. 262, 105320.
Feng, S.J., Lu, S.F., 2016. Repeated shear behaviors of geotextile/geomembrane and
geomembrane/clay interfaces. Environ. Earth Sci. 75 (3), 273.
Fowmes, G.J., Dixon, N., Jones, D.R.V., 2008. Validation of a numerical modelling
technique for multilayered geosynthetic landfill lining systems. Geotext.
Geomembranes 26, 109–121.
Fowmes, G.J., Dixon, N., Fu, L., Zaharescu, C.A., 2017. Rapid prototyping of geosynthetic
interfaces: investigation of peak strength using direct shear tests. Geotext.
Geomembranes 45 (6), 674–687.
Fox, P.J., Nye, C.J., Morrison, T.C., Hunter, J.G., Olsta, J.T., 2006. Large dynamic direct
shear machine for geosynthetic clay liners. Geotech. Test J. 29 (5), 392–400.
Fox, P.J., Ross, J.D., 2010. Relationship between NP GCL internal and HDPE GMX/NP
GCL interface shear strengths. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 137 (8), 743–753.
Fox, P.J., Stark, T.D., 2015. State-of-the-art report: GCL shear strength and its
measurement–ten-year update. Geosynth. Int. 22 (1), 3–47.
Hebeler, G.L., Frost, J.D., Myers, A.T., 2005. Quantifying hook and loop interaction in
textured geomembrane-geotextile systems. Geotext. Geomembranes 23 (1), 77–105.
Idriss, I.M., Seed, H.B., 1968. Seismic response of horizontal soil layers. J. Soil Mech.
Found Div. 94 (4), 1003–1031.
Jones, D.R.V., Dixon, N., 2005. Landfill lining stability and integrity: the role of waste
settlement. Geotext. Geomembranes 23, 27–53.
Kavazanjian, E., Wu, X., Arab, M., Matasovic, N., 2018. Development of a numerical
model for performance-based design of geosynthetic liner systems. Geotext.
Geomembranes 46 (2), 166–182.
Kim, J., Riemer, M., Bray, J.D., 2005. Dynamic properties of geosynthetic interfaces.
Geotech. Test J. 28 (3), 288–296.
Koerner, R.M., Soong, T., 2000. Stability assessment of ten large landfill failures. Geo-
Denver 2000. In: Zornberg, J.C., Christopher, B.R. (Eds.), Advances in
Transportation and Geoenvironmental Systems Using Geosynthetics. ASCE, Reston,
VA, USA, GSP 103 (CD-ROM).
Mendez, B.C., Romo, M.P., Botero, E., 2012. Linearization of rigid body dynamics on
frictional interfaces under harmonic loading. Soil Dynam. Earthq. Eng. 32 (1),
152–158.
Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China,
2013. Technical Code for Municipal Solid Waste Sanitary Landfill (GB 50869-2013).
China Planning Press, Beijing, China (in Chinese).
Mitchell, J.K., Seed, R.B., Seed, H.B., 1990. Kettleman Hills waste landfill slope failure. I:
liner-system properties. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (4), 647–668.
Nye, C.J., Fox, P.J., 2007. Dynamic shear behavior of a needle-punched geosynthetic clay
liner. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 133 (8), 973–983.
Park, I.J., Seo, M.W., Park, J.B., Kwon, S.Y., Lee, J.S., 2004. Estimation of the dynamic
properties for geosynthetic interfaces. In: 13th World Conference on Earthquake
Engineering, Vancouver, Canada, August 1–6, p. 3210.
Pavanello, P., Carrubba, P., Moraci, N., 2018. Dynamic friction and the seismic
performance of geosynthetic interfaces. Geotext. Geomembranes 46 (6), 715–725.
Qian, X., Koerner, R.M., Gray, D.H., 2002. Geotechnical Aspects of Landfill Design and
Construction. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Ridruejo, A., González, C., LLorca, J., 2011. Micromechanisms of deformation and
fracture of polypropylene nonwoven fabrics. Int. J. Solid Struct. 48 (1), 153–162.
Seo, M.W., Park, I.J., Park, J.B., 2004. Development of displacement-softening model for
interface shear behavior between geosynthetics. Soils Found. 44 (6), 27–38.
Seo, M.W., Park, J.B., Park, I.J., 2007. Evaluation of interface shear strength between
geosynthetics under wet condition. Soils Found. 47 (5), 845–856.
Shen, Y., Chang, J.Y., Feng, S.J., Zheng, Q.T., 2018. Experimental study of static shear
strength of geomembrane/geotextile interface under high shear rate. In: Proceedings
of GeoShanghai International Conference, pp. 318–326.
Stark, T.D., Williamson, T.A., Eid, H.T., 1996. HDPE geomembrane/geotextile interface
shear strength. J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (3), 197–203.
Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.D.L., Caldeira, L.M., 2013. Sand-geotextile interface
characterisation through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests. Geosynth. Int. 20
(1), 26–38.
Wang, J., Liu, F.Y., Wang, P., Cai, Y.Q., 2016. Particle size effects on coarse soil-geogrid
interface response in cyclic and post-cyclic direct shear tests. Geotext.
Geomembranes 44 (6), 854–861.
Wasti, Y., Ozdüzgün, Z.B., 2001. Geomembrane-geotextile interface shear properties as
determined by inclined board and direct shear box tests. Geotext. Geomembranes 19
(1), 45–57.
Yegian, M.K., Lahlaf, A.M., 1992. Dynamic interface shear strength properties of
geomembranes and geotextiles. J. Geotech. Eng. 118 (5), 760–779.
Yegian, M.K., Harb, J.N., Kadakal, U., 1998. Dynamic response analysis procedure for
landfills with geosynthetic liners. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 124 (10),
1027–1033.
Yegian, M.K., Kadakal, U., 2004. Foundation isolation for seismic protection using a
smooth synthetic liner. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 130 (11), 1121–1130.