Durability of HDPE Geomembrane Seams

Immersed in Brine for Three Years

R. Kerry Rowe, F.ASCE 1; and Mohamad Shoaib, Ph.D. 2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: This paper examines the long-term durability of two dual wedge welded 1.5-mm-thick high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembranes (GMBs). The two GMBs, which had different resins, and the welds initially met relevant standards. The welded GMBs
were immersed in a brine solution with 200 g=L total dissolved solids and pH 8.7 at four different temperatures (40, 65, 75, and 85°C)
for 3 years. Changes in standard oxidative induction time (Std-OIT) and high-pressure oxidative induction time (HP-OIT) were monitored
at (1) the GMB well away from the weld, (2) the heat-affected zone beside the weld, and (3) the welded zone. The Std-OIT and HP-OIT
depletion were fastest in the heat-affected zone adjacent to the weld and slowest in the weld itself. Both the Std-OIT and HP-OIT were still
depleting, without having reached a residual value, when degradation in physical properties was observed. Brine has a greater effect on time
to nominal failure for the peel break strength than for the shear break strength and elongation. Aging of the GMB in the heat-affected zone
beside the weld controls the time to nominal failure. The importance of the welds in the consideration of GMB service-life is highlighted.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001817. © 2017 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geosynthetics; Geomembrane; Seam; Welds; Antioxidant depletion; Shear test; Peel test.

Introduction
Ponds containing large volumes of warm (approximately 40–60°C)
to hot (85–95°C) concentrated brine (approximately 20% salts)
are frequently constructed. High-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembranes (GMBs) are used to minimize the migration of
pollutants from these ponds to the surrounding environment by ad-
vection and diffusion (Rowe et al. 2004). These membranes are
now widely used in solar ponds for energy recovery or in very large
brine ponds forming part of coal or shale gas extraction undertak-
ings. Brine may arise from the formation of salt caverns for storing
liquid natural gas. In addition, GMBs are extensively used in brine
ponds for evaporation of liquid extracted in the solution-mining of
potash. The GMB-lined area of brine ponds can be up to 300 ha on
a large project, with fluid depths typically in the 5–10-m range.
When double lined, it is not uncommon for the drainage layer
in an individual cell to drain approximately 20 ha to a single sump,
for a total lined area of approximately 23 ha. Except where wedge
welding is not practical, the GMB panels are usually seamed with
dual wedge welds. For approximately 6.8-m-wide rolls of 1.5-mm
or 2-mm HDPE GMB, there will be over 34,000 m (34 km) of dual
wedge welds in a 23-ha lined area, or approximately 1,500 m of
weld/ha. Recent instances of premature failure of welds that pass
normal construction quality control performance tests for GMB that
meets normal requirements [e.g., GRI-GM13 (GRI 2016) and GRI-
GM19 (GRI 2015)] has raised interest in the effect of welds on the
1 The rate of antioxidant depletion in Stage I depends on several
Professor and Canada Research Chair in Geotechnical and Geo-
environmental Engineering, GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s—RMC,
Queen’s Univ., Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 (corresponding author).
E-mail: kerry.rowe@.queensu.ca
2
GeoEngineering Centre at Queen’s—RMC, Queen’s Univ., Kingston,
ON, Canada K7L 3N6. E-mail: mohamads474@gmail.com; Mohamad
.shoaib@queensu.ca
Note. This manuscript was submitted on January 6, 2017; approved on
July 10, 2017; published online on December 15, 2017. Discussion period
open until May 15, 2018; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical
and Geoenvironmental Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241.
service life of GMB liners. This is especially true for brine ponds
where the temperature and chemical conditions can be challenging.
The brine in the brine ponds may range from 10 g=L to greater
than 300 g=L total dissolved solids (TDS), and concentrations of
approximately 200 g=L TDS (20% salt in water by weight) and a
pH of approximately 9 are not uncommon. Unless actively mixed,
stratification of salt concentration will occur, leading to lower con-
centrations (e.g., 10 g=L TDS, Leblanc et al. 2011) in the upper
convective zone and higher concentrations (30–40 g=L) with
depth. This stratification captures heat in the lower zone near most
of the liner such that temperatures may range from 30°C at the sur-
face to 90–100°C at the liner (Lu et al. 2001; Silva and Almanza
2009; Tan et al. 2012). With active temperature control, these tem-
peratures may be limited to approximately 55°C (Leblanc et al.
2011), or with very active monitoring and control to 30–40°C.
Modern HPDE GMBs typically have a medium-density poly-
ethylene resin, 2–3% carbon black, and an antioxidant (AO)/
stabilizer package formulated to protect the GMB both during
manufacture and subsequently when deployed in the field (Scheirs
2009; Müller 2007). Chemical aging consists of three conceptual
stages: (1) antioxidant depletion (Stage I); (2) an induction period
between antioxidant depletion and the onset of measureable poly-
mer degradation (Stage II); and (3) degradation in the GMB physi-
cal properties with the time (Stage III). The time to nominal failure,
tNF , is usually taken to be the half-life or time at which a property
of interest has decreased to 50% of its original value (Hsuan and
Koerner 1998).
factors, including GMB temperature, the amount and type of
antioxidants/stabilizers, the GMB exposure conditions, the chemi-
cal composition of the fluids with which the GMB is in contact, the
diffusion/extraction of antioxidants from the GMB, and the type
and thickness of the GMB protection layer. There has been consid-
erable research into antioxidant depletion from HDPE GMBs to
investigate these issues (e.g., Sangam and Rowe 2002; Müller and
Jacob 2003; Rowe et al. 2008, 2009; Rimal and Rowe 2009;
Scheirs 2009; Rowe et al. 2010a, b, 2013, 2014; Rowe 2012;
Ewais and Rowe 2012; Ewais et al. 2014; Abdelaal et al. 2014).

© ASCE 04017114-1 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 Several studies have reported the effect of salt solutions on HDPE
(Vasile 2000; Scheirs 2000, 2009) and other polymers (Burford and
Williams 1979; Wyzgoslo and Novak 1987). None, however, has
addressed the effect on welded GMB.
Geomembrane failures have been observed either in the weld or
at the heat-affected zone (HAZ) beside the edge of the weld (Giroud
2005). This can arise from a number of sources. For example, too
much heat (melting) can result in weakening of the GMB in the
heat-affected portion of GMB adjacent to the seam (Peggs 1995;
Giroud 2005; Peggs et al. 2014). An abrupt change in thickness of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
GMB at the seam or in its vicinity can cause a reduction in strength
(Peggs 1995; Giroud 2005). Tensile stresses and strains at the weld
may greatly exceed those in the adjacent sheet (Giroud 2005;
Kavazanjian et al. 2017) and hence in the region directly adjacent
to the weld. However, with the exception of Rowe and Shoaib
(2017) and Zhang et al. (2017), there is a paucity of research in-
vestigating the durability and long-term performance of welded
HDPE GMB seams in general, and in brine in particular.
The long length of the welds and the challenging chemical and
thermal conditions raise the question of how the durability of the
welds compares with that of the free-field GMB liner. Thus the first
objective of this paper is to study antioxidant depletion from three
GMB locations when the GMB is immersed in a brine solution for
3 years. The second objective is to investigate the effect of brine
solution on the physical degradation of a dual wedge weld for the
two GMBs over 3 years.
Welding HDPE GMB: Three Locations Examined
This paper examines the aging of the commonly used dual hot wedge
weld (Müller 2007; Scheirs 2009). Dual hot wedge welding produ-
ces two parallel seams with an air channel between them (Fig. 1).
One of the advantages of the dual welds is that the air channel be-
tween the welded areas can be pressurized one hour after welding to
nondestructively test the integrity of the weld (GRI-GM19). Dual
hot wedge welding involves heating the GMB using a wedge temper-
ature reported in the literature as 300–400°C by Müller (2007) and
400–460°C by Scheirs (2009) with the temperature depending in
part on the resin used in the GMB. The HDPE GMBs panels are
melted by the hot wedge and the two panels are pressed together
by squeeze rollers immediately behind the hot wedge to form the
seam. Three key functional elements define the welding process
1. The wedge temperature and length of hot wedge track contol
how the GMB surface is melted;
2. The applied roller pressure should be sufficient to squeeze
the two GMBs together to form a continuous GMB without
excessive squeeze-out of melted GMB; and
3. The welding speed controls the length of time the GMB is in
contact with the hot wedge track and under the pressure of
the squeeze roller.
In accordance with DVS 2225-4 (DVS 1996), the allowable
thickness reduction by a hot dual wedge for 1.5-mm HDPE is
Fig. 1. Cross section of a dual wedge weld showing the three locations
of testing
© ASCE 04017114-2
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114
between 0.2 and 0.7 mm. The welds tested were all at the low
end of this range.
This paper examined the following three areas (Fig. 1):
1. The sheet away from the weld (SAW) that was unaffected by the
welding process;
2. The HAZ immediately adjacent to the weld that was heated as
the weld was formed; and
3. The weld where two sheets were fused.
Materials
Initial Properties of Geomembrane
Two different 1.5-mm-thick HDPE GMBs [densities 0.945 and
0.943 g=cc as per ASTM D1505 (ASTM 2010)] from the same
manufacturer (MyE-15 and MyEW-15) were examined (Table 1).
Membrane MyE-15 was black, whereas MyEW-15 had one white
side. Although the color of the geomembrane was the visible dis-
tinction, the color itself was not the important variable in this study
of the relative performance of the two GMBs; the important differ-
ence was that, although the two GMBs were produced by the same
manufacturing company, the they had resins from two different
resin manufacturers with different melt indexes [ASTM D1238
(ASTM 2013)], stress crack resistance [ASTM D5397 (ASTM
2012b)], and tensile properties [ASTM D6693 (ASTM 2001)
for sheet and ASTM D6392 (ASTM 2012a) for welds] (Table 1).
They also had different antioxidant packages with different stan-
dard oxidative induction time [Std-OIT; ASTM D3895 (ASTM
2014)] and high-pressure oxidative induction time [HP-OIT;
ASTM D5885 (ASTM 2017)] [ASTM D5199 (ASTM 2012c);
Table 1]. The sheets had a mean thickness of 1.5 mm with a
standard deviation of 0.02 mm (Table 1). The initial properties
(Table 1) of both GMBs met the requirements of GRI-GM13
(GRI 2016).
Initial Properties of Welds
The GMB rolls were welded by a very experienced Terrafix
Environmental Technologies (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) welding
technician as part of a field installation. The initial properties of
the weld (Table 1) met the requirements of GRI GM-19 (GRI
2015). The average thickness of the weld was 2.8 mm (more than
90% of the initial thickness of the two sheets) with a standard
deviation of 0.08 mm; this met the requirements of DVS 2225-4.
There was less than 10% difference in the thickness of the GMB in
the HAZ in the vicinity of the weld (mean of 1.5 mm with a stan-
dard deviation of 0.06 mm) and the thickness of the HAZ was
within the normal variability of the thickness of the sheet away
from the weld.
After welding, standard and high-pressure oxidative induction
time tests were performed on specimens taken from three locations
on the welded sample described previously, i.e., SAW, HAZ, and
weld (Fig. 1 and Table 1). There was a statistically significant
difference at the 95% confidence level in the OIT from the three
locations. The OIT was highest in the sheet away from the weld
(Table 1). A small amount of OIT (2–4%) was lost from the
heat-affected zone and slightly more (4–6%) from the welded zone
due to the welding. However, all values met the requirements of
GRI-GM13 (GRI 2016).
Brine Solution Examined
The brine examined contained 100 g=L sodium chloride (NaCl),
50 g=L sodium carbonate (Na2 CO3 ), and 50 g=L sodium
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Table 1. Geomembrane Initial Characteristics
GMB ASTM standard Unit MyE-15 MyEW-15
Resina — — CL220118F1 11G1153
Nominal thickness — mm 1.5
0.02 1.5
0.02
Upper surface color — — Black White
Date manufactured — — 2012=4=27 2011=10=30
Resin density D1505 g/cc 0.938 0.9374
GMB density D1505 g/cc 0.945 0.943
Std-OIT o (DSC) SAW D3895 min 161
1.1 177
0.61
Std-OIT o (DSC) HAZ D3895 min 156
0.5 170
0.9
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Std-OIT o (DSC) Weld D3895 min 152
1 167
1

HP-OIT o (DSC) SAW D5885 min 1142
15 619
12
HP-OIT o (DSC) HAZ D5885 min 1119
14 601
10
HP-OIT o (DSC) Weld D5885 min 1094
15 587
14
LLMI (2.16 kg=190°C) D1238 g=10 min 0.098
0.001 0.12
0.001
HLMI (21.6 kg=190°C) D1238 g=10 min 12.02
0.03 13.58
0.12
Flow rate ratio — — 123 113
SCR D5397 h 3580
970 5320
200
Shear yield strength (HAZ)b D6392 kN=m 26.4
1.6 28.8
1.3
Shear break strength (HAZ)b D6392 kN=m 23.7
1.1 24.7
1.2
Shear yield elongation (HAZ)b D6392 mm 13
2.7 15.7
1.2
Shear break elongation (HAZ)b D6392 mm 290
25 325
18
Peel break strength (HAZ)b D6392 kN=m 27.9
:5 23.4
:6
Peel break elongation (HAZ)b D6392 mm 28.5
3 33.7
2.4
Tensile yield strengthc (MD) D6693 kN=m 26.7
1.4 31
1.2
Tensile yield strainc (MD) D6693 % 22.4
:3 26.4
0.3
Tensile break strengthc (MD) D6693 kN=m 54.2
1.2 55.3
1.2
Tensile break strainc (MD) D6693 % 870
40 890
38
Tensile yield strengthc (XMD) D6693 kN=m 27.5
0.6 31.8
0.6
Tensile yield strainc (XMD) D6693 % 18.7
0.45 19.9
0.5
Tensile break strengthc (XMD) D6693 kN=m 60.1
1.1 55.4
1.1
Tensile break strainc (XMD) D6693 % 920
60 930
50
a
Resins came from two different resin manufacturers.
b
Failure on welded samples occurred in heat affected zone adjacent to the weld not in the weld itself.
c
Sheet well away from the weld (MD = machine direction, XMD = cross machine direction).

bicarbonate (NaHCO3 ). It had 200 g=L total dissolved solids
(TDS) and a pH of 8.7.
Method
Immersion Testing
The welded GMBs were cut into 100 × 180-mm samples with the
weld centrally located in the samples and were immersed in 4-L
glass containers filled with brine. The coupons were separated by
5-mm-diameter glass rods to ensure that there was brine on both
sides of the samples. The containers were placed in forced-air
ovens at 40, 65, 75, and 85°C. To avoid a buildup of antioxidants
diffusing out of the GMB in the brine, the brine was replaced every
month over the first 2 years and then every 2 months. The samples
were taken at specified time intervals and tested for the OIT at the
SAW, HAZ, and weld (Fig. 1), and for shear and peel properties of
the weld.
Oxidative Induction Time Testing
Standard OIT tests were conducted at 200°C under 35 kPa of
oxygen pressure in accordance with ASTM D3895 (ASTM 2014)
using a TA Instrument Q-100 (New Castle, Delaware) series differ-
ential scanning calorimeter (DSC). High-pressure OIT tests were
conducted at 150°C under 3,450 kPa of oxygen pressure in accor-
dance with ASTM D5885 (ASTM 2017) using a TA Instrument
Q20 DSC. The Std-OIT and HP-OIT tests were conducted on at
least four specimens from each location at each sampling time.
For oxidative induction time testing, 1.8-mm-diameter and
5.7–5.8-mg specimens of SAW were taken from the sheet well
away from the weld, whereas those for the HAZ were entirely taken
from within the 3 mm closest to the edge of the weld. The 1.2-mm-
diameter and 5.7–5.8-mg weld specimens were taken from the
center of the welded area.
Shear Test
Shear tests were conducted using a Zwick Roell Model Z020 (Ken-
nesaw, Georgia) tensile machine in accordance with ASTM D6392
(ASTM 2012a). Five specimens with dimensions 150 × 25-mm
were taken perpendicular to the seam (with the weld centrally lo-
cated in the specimen) and tested at each sampling time. The shear
tests were performed with a constant machine cross head speed of
50 mm=min and the grips were secured 25 mm on each side of the
start of the seam. All the welds failed in the HAZ adjacent to the
weld and none in the actual weld itself either initially or with aging.
Peel Test
Peel tests were performed in accordance with ASTM D6392
(ASTM 2012a) by subjecting the samples to 90° peel (T peel) tests.
Initial properties were based on five specimens tested for both
tracks (i.e., 10 peel test results). All failures in both the new welds
and the aged welds occurred in the HAZ. No peel separation
was observed for any unaged or aged samples. Specification GRI
GM-19 (GRI 2015) has no requirements for peel break elongation.
Because the concept of peel elongation is not readily accepted in
the industry, the results are reported but discussion is limited; no

© ASCE 04017114-3 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 weight was ascribed to the peel elongation in the assessment of
relative seam performance.
Results
Antioxidant Depletion in Terms of Std-OIT and HP-OIT
Fig. 2 shows typical depletion of the antioxidants detected by
the Std-OIT test with time for the three locations considered
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
65°C for GMB MyEW-15. For ease of comparison of the rates of
decrease, all values were normalized with respect to the initial
value at that location immediately after welding (Table 1). Fig. 3
shows the depletion of Std-OIT in the HAZ of MyE-15 immersed
in brine at four temperatures, and Fig. 4 shows the depletion of
HP-OIT under similar conditions. Fig. 5 shows the effect of tem-
perature on the depletion of HP-OIT at the three locations of
interest for MyE-15 at 85°C. As might be expected, the rate of
depletion was always fastest at 85°C and decreased with decreas-

ing temperature (Figs. 2–5). More interesting is the finding that

(i.e., SAW, HAZ, and weld) at 85°C for both GMBs and at
the depletion of both Std-OIT and HP-OIT was fastest in the
heat-affected zone adjacent to the weld and slowest in the weld
1.0 itself for all temperatures (Figs. 2 and 5). It is hypothesized that
the slower depletion at the weld was due to the thicker GMB at the
weld providing a longer diffusion path (Rimal and Rowe 2009;
0.8 Rowe et al. 2010b), whereas the faster depletion at the HAZ was
due to a change in the morphology of the GMB due to the heating
Normalized Std-OIT (-)

and the subsequent rate of cooling of the polyethylene immedi-

0.6 ately adjacent to the welded zone (this hypothesis is presently
being investigated by another researcher).
After 26 months at 85°C, the Std-OIT for MyE-15 had depleted
0.4 to a residual (5.7
0.4 min) that was 3.6, 3.6, and 4.4% of the
initial values in the HAZ, SAW, and weld, respectively [Fig. 2(a)]
0.2
Weld 1.0
SAW MyE-15
HAZ HAZ
(a) 0.0
0.8
1.0
Normalized Std-OIT (-)

0.6
0.8
Normalized Std-OIT (-)

0.4
0.6

0.2 40oC
65oC
o
0.4 75 C
85oC
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
0.2 Incubation Time (months)
Weld
SAW Fig. 3. Normalized variation in Std-OIT with incubation time for HAZ
HAZ
(b) 0.0 MyE-15 immersed in brine at four temperatures
1.0

1.0
0.8 MyE-15
HAZ
Normalized Std-OIT (-)

0.8
0.6
Normalized HP-OIT (-)

0.6
0.4

0.4
0.2
Weld
SAW o
HAZ 0.2 40 C
o
0.0 65 C
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 o
75 C
(c) Incubation Time (months) 85oC
0.0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
Fig. 2. Normalized variation of Std-OIT with incubation time at three Incubation Time (months)
locations immersed in brine for (a) MyE-15 at 85°C; (b) MyEW-15 at
85°C; (c) MyEW-15 at 65°C; Std-OIT data points fitted by three- Fig. 4. Normalized variation in HP-OIT with incubation time for HAZ
parameter exponential model; error bars represent ± standard deviation MyE-15 immersed in brine at four temperatures

© ASCE 04017114-4 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 1.0
MyE-15 The depletion of antioxidant at different temperatures is often
85 ° C
modeled by a first-order decay equation that, for the general case
0.8 with a residual OIT r , can be written (Rowe et al. 2013)

OIT t ¼ OIT r þ ðOIT o -OIT r Þeð−stÞ ð1aÞ

Normalized HP-OIT (-)

0.6
and, on rearrangement, as
OIT t ¼ OIT o e−st ð1bÞ
0.4

where OIT t ¼ OIT remaining at any time t (min); OIT o = initial

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

OIT (min); OIT r = residual OIT value (min); s = antioxidant

0.2
Weld depletion rate (month−1 ); OIT o ¼ ðOIT o -OIT r Þ; OIT t ¼
SAW ðOIT o -OIT t Þ; and t = aging time (month).
HAZ
0.0 The AO depletion rate at a temperature of interest is gener-
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 ally evaluated using a time–temperature superposition model
Incubation Time (months) (Arrhenius model). The Arrhenius equation for AO depletion rate
can be written as (Hsuan and Koerner 1998)
Fig. 5. Normalized variation in HP-OIT with incubation time for
s ¼ Ae−½RT  ð2Þ
Ea
MyE-15 at three locations immersed in brine at 85°C

where s = antioxidant depletion rate (months−1 ); Ea = activation

energy (J mol−1 ); R = universal gas constant (8.314 J mol−1 K−1 );
and, correspondingly, after 28 months for MyEW-15, to a residual T = absolute temperature (K); and A = constant pre-exponential
(6.3
0.6 min) that was 3.2, 3.3, and 4.1% of the initial values in factor.
the HAZ, SAW, and weld, respectively [Fig. 2(b)]. After 36 months Taking the natural logarithm of both sides gives a linear
at 65°C, the Std-OIT was still depleting, having reached 6, 12, and relationship
14% of the initial values in the HAZ, SAW, and weld, respectively,   
for MyEW-15 [Fig. 2(c)]. Ea 1
lnðsÞ ¼ lnðAÞ − ð3Þ
For MyE-15 at 85°C, the HP-OIT reached the residual value R T
(582 min) at 52, 51, and 53% of the initial value (Fig. 5) for the
HAZ, SAW, and weld after 28, 30, and 32 months, respectively. Using a nonlinear least-squares fit for the first-order relationship
These residual values were all greater than the 400 min specified [Eq. (1b) and Figs. 2 and 3] to the Std-OIT depletion data yields
in GRI GM13 (GRI 2016) for a new GMB. For MyEW-15 at 85°C, a rate of depletion, s, at each location and temperature, T. These
the HP-OIT reached the residual value (357 min; 59, 58, and 61% values can then be used to establish Arrhenius plots of (ln s)
of the postwelding initial HP-OIT) at the HAZ, SAW, and weld versus (1=T) (K) (Fig. 6). Based on the Std-OIT data in Fig. 6(a),
after 26, 28, and 30 months, respectively. the linear least-squares best fit to Eq. (3) for HAZ MyE-15
The initial value of HP-OIT MyE-15 was approximately GMB is
double the initial value of MyEW-15 (Table 1). This is because, lnðsÞ ¼ 11.8 − 4692=T ð4Þ
although the two GMBs were from the same manufacturer and
were delivered to site at the same time, they had two different Based on this Arrhenius plot [Eq. (4)], Std-OIT depletion
resins (from different resin manufacturers) with quite different rates, s, were predicted at different temperatures, and using these
antioxidant/stabilizer packages. depletion rates and Eq. (1), the times to depletion were calculated

-1.0 -1.0

-1.5 -1.5

-2.0 -2.0
ln [s (month-1)]

ln [s (month-1)]

-2.5 -2.5

-3.0 -3.0

-3.5 -3.5

-4.0 HAZ -4.0 HAZ

SAW SAW
Weld Weld
-4.5 -4.5
0.0027 0.0028 0.0029 0.0030 0.0031 0.0032 0.0033 0.0027 0.0028 0.0029 0.0030 0.0031 0.0032 0.0033
(a) 1/T(K-1) (b) 1/T(K-1)

Fig. 6. Arrhenius plot of antioxidant depletion rate, s, obtained from a best fit of the three-parameter model to the Std-OIT data at three locations
for: (a) MyE-15 [ln ðsÞHAZ ¼ 11.8 − 4692=T, ln ðsÞSAW ¼ 11.4 − 4636=T, ln ðsÞWeld ¼ 9.9 − 4230=T]; (b) MyEW-15 [lnðsÞHAZ ¼ 9.5 − 3824=T,
ln ðsÞSAW ¼ 8.4 − 3527=T, ln ðsÞWeld ¼ 7.7 − 3432=T]

© ASCE 04017114-5 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 Table 2. Predicted Standard OIT (Std-OIT) Depletion Times at Different Based on Eqs. (5) and (6) for the HAZ and on similar equations
Temperatures for SAW MyE-15 for other locations (Shoaib 2017), the estimated antioxidant de-
Time to depletion of Std-OIT in SAW for pletion time of HP-OIT for the three locations was calculated for
MyE-15 (years) a range of temperatures (Table 3). Similar to the case for Std-OIT,
Temperature Three-parameter
for all temperatures examined, the time for depletion was shortest
(°C) model fit to Std-OIT Observed for the HAZ and longest for the weld area. The shortest antioxidant
depletion time depended on temperature; at 95 and 85°C it was for
95 1.6 HAZ MyE-15 even though the initial HP-OIT o value of MyE-15
85 2.3 2.1
was approximately twice that of MyEW-15, but at temperatures
75 3.3 3.5
≥75°C the shortest depletion time was for MyEW-15.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

65 5 Est. 4–5
50 9.4
40 15
30 24
Note: Equation: lnðsÞ ¼ 11.4 − 4636=T; R2 ¼ 0.99; Predicted Std-OIT
best fit by three-parameter exponential model to actual data.
(Table 2) and compared with the observed values where known.
The agreement between observed and predicted times is considered
reasonable. Adopting a similar approach for all three locations
relative to the weld, the time to depletion was calculated for both
GMBs (Table 3), and in both cases the shortest time to Std-OIT
depletion was for the HAZ at all temperatures.
Because the Std-OIT test only captures some of the AOs, this
raises the question of how the AOs detected by the HP-OIT test
deplete with time for GMB welds immersed in brine. Figs. 4
and 5 show that the residual value to which the HP-OIT depleted
was dependent on temperature, and hence so, too, was OIT o ¼
OIT o − OIT r . An Arrhenius plot was constructed by plotting
lnð1=OIT o Þ versus time for the values obtained from the HP-OIT
data, and the least-squares best fit equations for the HAZ were
lnð1=OIT o Þ ¼ 7.7 − 501.9=T for MyE-15
lnð1=OIT o Þ ¼ 9.7 − 1514=T for MyEW-15
Eqs. (5a) and (5b) can be used to estimate the OIT o at any given
temperature for the two GMBs, and hence to estimate OIT r (Fig. 7),
because HP-OIT o was approximately 1,120 min for MyE15 and
600 min for MyEW15 in the HAZ after welding.
Knowing OIT o , a linear least-squares best fit to Eq. (1b) of the
HP-OIT data gave the rates of depletion, s, for each test temper-
ature, and this was used to establish an Arrhenius relationship for
HP-OIT depletion to the residual, HP-OIT r , in the HAZ
lnðsÞ ¼ 5.2 − 2453=T for HAZ in MyE-15
lnðsÞ ¼ 2.3 − 1514=T for HAZ in MyEW-15
For both GMBs, the time to depletion in warm to hot brine is
relatively fast. The time to depletion for the critical HAZ is pro-
jected to be 6–8 years for Std-OIT and 2–4 years for HP-OIT at
50°C and approximately 2 years for both Std-OIT and HP-OIT
at 85°C (Table 3). Despite the high initial HP-OIT, it appears
that Std-OIT dominated the length of the traditional Stage I of
the GMBs’ time to nominal failure.
Shear Strength and Elongation
For the weld in the shear test, the shear yield strength was higher
than the shear break strength at all times of sampling (Fig. 8). With
aging at the four test temperatures, the shear yield strength after
36 months of aging in brine was essentially unchanged from the
initial value (e.g., Figs. 8 and 9). However, there was a significant
decrease in the shear break strength [Figs. 8–10(a)] and shear break
elongation [Figs. 8 and 10(b)] with aging time. For example, the
shear break strength of MyE-15 started to decrease after 8.3 months
at 85°C, 12.2 months at 75°C, and 16 months at 65°C, marking the
beginning of physical degradation at the HAZ. The shear break
strength at 40°C fluctuated around the initial value but remained
essentially unchanged at 36 months of aging [Fig. 10(a)] for
MyE-15. The decrease in the shear break elongation started after
ð5aÞ 8.3, 12, and 16 months at 85, 75, and 65°C respectively. Table 4
summarizes the time, ti , at which the various physical properties
began to degrade together with the values of Std-OIT and HP-OIT
ð5bÞ
(both as values and as a percentage of the initial postwelding HAZ
value) when the degradation in physical performance commenced.
Neither the Std-OIT nor HP-OIT had reached a residual value
when physical degradation was first observed for T ≥ 65°C
(Table 4; no degradation was observed at 40°C). This indicates that
immersion in brine had a greater impact on the shear break strength
and elongation than on the bulk depletion of OIT, and that degra-
dation of physical properties can occur prior to OIT depletion.
Because the OIT samples were taken through the entire thickness
of the GMB, they represent an average value through the thickness.
Thus when looking at the OIT through the entire thickness of the
ð6aÞ GMB, the traditional three-stage degradation process (Hsuan and
Koerner 1998) does not apply in this case. It is hypothesized
ð6bÞ that the OIT at the surface was less than the measured OIT and that

Table 3. Estimated Time to Std-OIT and HP-OIT Depletion at Three Locations for the Two GMBs (Years) Based on the Three-Parameter Model [Eq. (1)]
MyE-15 MyEW-15
Based on Std-OIT Based on HP-OIT Based on Std-OIT Based on HP-OIT
Temperature
(°C) HAZ SAW Weld HAZ SAW Weld HAZ SAW Weld HAZ SAW Weld
95 1.3 1.6 2.2 1.5 2.3 2.5 1.5 1.9 2.0 1.9 2.3 2.4
85 1.8 2.3 3.1 1.8 2.6 2.9 2.0 2.4 2.6 2.0 2.5 2.6
75 2.6 3.3 4.3 2.2 3.1 3.4 2.7 3.2 3.5 2.2 2.7 2.8
65 3.9 5.0 6.1 2.6 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.3 4.6 2.4 2.9 3.0
50 7.4 9.4 11 3.6 4.7 5.1 6.2 7.0 7.4 2.8 3.3 3.4
40 12 15 17 4.6 5.7 6.2 9.1 10 11 3.1 3.7 3.7
30 19 24 26 5.8 7.1 7.5 13 14 16 3.4 4.0 4.0

© ASCE 04017114-6 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 1200
at the center of the specimen the OIT was higher than the measured
1100
value. If the OIT was depleted at the surface, then the three-stage
HAZ MyE-15HP-OITr
1000
HAZ MyE-15 HP-OIT*o
model might still apply on a local scale; it is hypothesized that the
900 HAZ MyEW-15HP-OITr
loss of antioxidants in a thin layer at the surface allowed the deg-
800 HAZ MyEW-15 HP-OIT*o radation that caused the overall change in physical properties
and that this effect was magnified in the HAZ due to morphological
HP-OIT (min)

700
changes that occurred due to heating and cooling adjacent to the
600 weld combined with the difference in thickness between the HAZ
500 and the weld; however this hypothesis requires more investigation.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

400

300
Modeling Decrease in Shear Strength at Break
200 with Time
100
Plotting the shear break strength, SBSt , values versus time, t, the
0 time when the strength first departed from the initial value, ti , was
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
o obtained by finding the intersection of the linear least-squares best
Temperature ( C)
fit to the decreasing values and the initial value (Figs. 8 and 9).
Fig. 7. Variation of HP-OIT o and HP-OIT r in the heat affected zone Based on Figs. 8 and 9, the change in the shear break strength
with temperature for MyE-15 with HP-OIT o for approximately (SBS) with time at any temperature can be described by
1120 min and for MyEW-15 with HP-OIT o for approximately 600 min;
Z ¼ Zo − fðt − ti Þgss for t < tr ð7aÞ
the points shown are test data the lines represent the best fit curve
Z ¼ Zr for t3 tr ð7bÞ
35

Shear Test MyE-15 at 85 C

o where Z ¼ SBSt (kN) is the shear break strength at time t (months);
30 Zo ¼ SBSo (kN) is the initial value after welding; ti = time when
the strength first departs from the initial value (months); ss = slope
25 of the best fit line for the decrease in shear strength at break with
ageing time (kN=month for SBS); tr = time at which it reaches the
residual value (months); and Zr ¼ SBSr (kN) is the residual shear
Stress (kN/m)

20
break strength. The Macaulay brackets {} indicate a ramp function
15
with a zero value for ðt − ti Þ < 0.
The values of ti obtained at 65, 75, and 85°C were used to es-
tablish an Arrhenius plot of lnð1=ti Þ versus temperature 1=T (K),
10
unaged and the least-squares best fit to the data can be represented by
12 months
5 18 months lnð1=ti Þ ¼ 8.9 − 3946=T for MyE-15 ð8aÞ
28 months
36 months
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
lnð1=ti Þ ¼ 4.7 − 2485=T for MyEW-15 ð8bÞ
Elongation (mm)
where 1=ti = reciprocal of the time ti (months−1 ); Ea = activation
Fig. 8. Load-deformation curve of MyE-15 for shear test with shear
energy in calculation of SBS (J mol−1 ); R = universal gas constant
break strength (SBS) shown by arrows at different times
(8.314 J mol−1 K−1 ); and T = absolute temperature (K). Based on
Eq. (8), the time to first loss in shear break strength can be esti-
mated at a temperature of interest.
Plotting lnðss Þ against 1=T from Fig. 10(a) and obtaining the
35
Shear yield strength least-squares best fit to the data in the Arrhenius plot gives
Shear break strength

30
ln ðss ÞMyE-15 ¼ 14.7 − 5352=T for MyE-15 ð9aÞ
Shear strength (kN/m)

25 and, similarly

20
ln ðss ÞMyEW-15 ¼ 13.1 − 4667=T for MyEW-15 ð9bÞ

15 Rearranging Eq. (7a), the time for SBS to reach a value SBSt
can then be deduced from
10

t ¼ ti þ ðZo − Zt Þ=ss ð10Þ

5

The time, t, to Zt ¼ SBSt at any temperature T (K) can be cal-

o o
ti(85 C) td(85 C)
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36 culated from Eqs. (7)–(10) for each GMB immersed in brine. In the
Incubation Time (months) absence of more data (after 3 years of testing, residual had only
been reached at 85°C), if it is assumed that the residual SBSr does
Fig. 9. Variation in shear yield strength and shear break strength
not change with temperature and is equal to the value obtained for
with incubation time for welded MyE-15 immersed in brine at 85°C
85°C (i.e., Zr ¼ SBSr ¼ 4.6 kN=m for MyE-15 and 4.3 kN=m for
[ti ð85°CÞ ¼ 8 months; td ð85°CÞ ¼ 32 months; SBSr ¼ 4.6 kN=m]
MyEW-15), then the time to residual, tr , can be calculated from

© ASCE 04017114-7 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 gives the values calculated in the manner for both GMBs. The times
are relatively short for warm to hot brine: 13 and 9 years for
25 MyE-15 and MyEW-15, respectively, at 50°C and 2.7 and 2.6 years
Shear break strength (kN/m)

for MyE-15 and MyEW-15, respectively, at 85°C (Table 6).

20 The time to nominal failure (tNF ) is defined as the time to a 50%
decrease in some physical property relative to its initial value
15
(Hsuan and Koerner 1998) and can be predicted from Eq. (10)
(Table 7). The values of tNF (Table 7) are all less than tr (Table 6).
For example, for SBS at 85°C, tNF is 1.4 years (MyE-15) and
10
1.5 years (MyEW-15), compared with tr of 2.7 years (MyE-15) and
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

40oC SBSr 2.4 years (MyEW-15), and tNF of 9 and 6 years compared with tr of
5 65oC 13 and 9 years for MyE-15 and MyEW-15, respectively, at 50°C.
75oC
85oC
ti(85oC) ti(75oC) ti(65oC) o
td(85 C)
The shear break elongation in Fig. 10(b) can be described by
(a) 0 Eq. (7), where Z ¼ SBE (mm) is the shear break elongation at time
t (months), ti (months) is the time when the elongation first departs
from the initial value, ss (mm=month) is the slope of the best fit line
300
for the decrease in shear elongation at break with aging time, tr
(months) is the time at which the elongation reaches the residual
Shear break elongation (mm)

250
value, and Zr ¼ SBEr (mm) is the residual value. Adopting an
approach similar to that described previously for break strength,
200 equations and parameters can be obtained (Shear break elongation
column in Table 5) to allow Eq. (10) to be solved for tr and tNF
150 based on break elongation (Tables 6 and 7, respectively). Although
MyEW15 initially had a higher break strength (SBS) and elonga-
100 tion (SBE) at failure (Zo , Table 5) than did MyE-15, both SBS and
40oC SBE degraded faster for MyEW-15 than for MyE-15. Thus at 85°C,
65oC
50
SBEr tNF for SBE was 1.8 and 1.7 years for MyE-15 and MyEW-15,
75oC ti(75oC) ti(65oC)
ti(85oC)
85oC td(85oC) respectively, compared with 2.0 and 1.9 years, respectively, for
0 SBS, and at 50°C, tNF was 9.3 and 5.7 years for MyE-15 and
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
(b) MyEW-15, respectively, compared with 8.7 and 6 years, respec-
Incubation Time (months)
tively, for SBS. The value of tNF predicted based on shear break
Fig. 10. MyE-15 variation with incubation time at four tempera- strength was greater than that based on shear break elongation
tures in (a) shear break strength [ti ð65°CÞ ¼ 16 months; ti ð75°CÞ ¼ for T > 50°C, and the opposite was the case below 50°C. For
12.2 months; ti ð85°CÞ ¼ 8.3 months; td ð85°CÞ ¼ 32 months; SBSr ¼ T ≤ 85°C, tNF based on the shear break properties was longer for
4.6 kN=m]; (b) shear break elongation [ti ð65°CÞ ¼ 16 months; MyE-15 than MyEW-15 even though the MyEW-15 had higher
ti ð75°CÞ ¼ 12 months; ti ð85°CÞ ¼ 8.3 months; td ð85°CÞ ¼ 30 months; initial values, indicating that higher initial values do not necessarily
SBEr ¼ 28 mm] imply better long-term performance.

Peel Break Strength and Elongation

Eq. (10) by setting Zt ¼ SBSr . Table 5 summarizes shear break
strength values for Eqs. (8) and (9) as well as the values of Zo ¼ The peel break strength began to change after 10, 12.4, and
SBSo and Zr ¼ SBSr needed to calculate time, t, to Zt ¼ SBSt 17.4 months at 85, 75, and 65°C, respectively, for MyE-15. After
from Eq. (10) at any given temperature, T, for both GMBs. Table 6 36 months, the peel break strength had decreased to 18, 24, and

Table 4. Time at Which Physical Property Began to Decrease for MyE-15 and MyEW-15 in Brine (Months) and OIT Values at That Time
MyE-15 MyEW-15
OIT at ti OIT at ti
Std-OIT HP-OIT Std-OIT HP-OIT
Physical property Temperature ti a ti a
evaluated (°C) (months) Min %b Min %b (months) Min %b Min %b
Shear break 85 8.3 42.2 26 806 72 10 52.7 31 781 70
strength 75 12.2 32.2 20 782 70 12 50.6 30 835 75
65 16 43.8 27 773 69 15.1 57.1 34 833 74
Shear break 85 8.3 42.2 26 806 72 10 52.7 31 781 70
elongation 75 12 32.6 20 794 71 12 50.6 30 835 75
65 16 43.8 27 773 69 16.3 52.2 31 812 73
Peel break 85 10 30.4 18 781 70 10.3 51.5 31 781 70
strength 75 12.4 32.0 20 775 69 12 50.6 30 835 75
65 17.4 40.4 24 752 67 16.4 52.0 31 812 73
Peel break 85 10 30.4 18 781 70 11.2 48.6 29 769 69
elongation 75 12.4 32.0 20 775 69 13.8 42.6 25 777 69
65 14.9 45.6 28 792 71 18 49.1 29 769 69
a
ti = time at which the physical property began to decrease.
b
Percentage of the value just after welding.

© ASCE 04017114-8 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 Table 5. Parameters and Equations and Needed to Calculate Time, t (Months), to Zt from Eq. (10)
GMB Equation Item Shear break strength Shear break elongation Peel break strength Peel break elongation
MyE-15 Initial, Zo 23.7 kN=m 290 mm 27.8 kN=m 28.5 mm
Residual, Zr 4.6 kN=m 29 mm 5.1 kN=m 4.9 mm
8 lnð1=ti Þ ¼ 8.9–3946=T 8.7–3878=T 7.1–3332=T 4.4–2404=T
9 lnðss Þ ¼ 14.7–5352=T 19.8–6224=T 13.9–4971=T 12.8–4461=T
MyEW-15 Initial, Zo 24.7 kN=m 325 mm 23.4 kN=m 33.7 mm
Residual, Zr 4.3 kN=m 31 mm 4.3 kN=m 6.2 mm
8 lnð1=ti Þ ¼ 4.7–2485=T 6.1–2987=T 5.5–2810=T 5.6–2861=T
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

9 lnðss Þ ¼ 13.1–4667=T 16–4682=T 11.3–4007=T 13.7–4665=T

Note: ti is in months; gauge length for shear and peel = 25 mm.

Table 6. Predicted Time (Years) for OIT Depletion (OIT d ) and for the Shear and Peel Break Strength (SBS, PBS) and Elongation (SBE, PBE) to Reach the
Residual Value for MyE-15 and MyEW-15 in Brine
Predicted time (years)
MyE-15 MyEW-15
Shear break Shear break Peel break Peel break Shear break Shear break Peel break Peel break
Temperature strength elongation strength elongation strength elongation strength elongation
(°C) OIT d a (SBS) (SBE) (PBS) (PBE) OIT d a (SBS) (SBE) (PBS) (PBE)
95 1.5 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.7 1.9 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6
85 1.8 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.2 2.0 2.6 2.4 2.3 2.1
75 2.6 4.1 4.3 3.6 3.0 2.7 3.6 3.4 3.0 2.8
65 3.9 6.3 6.7 5.4 4.2 3.7 5.1 4.8 4.1 4.0
50 7.4 13 15 10 7.2 6.2 9 8.6 6.7 7.0
40 12 21 27 16 11 9.1 14 13 9.7 10
30 19 36 50 26 16 13 22 21 14 16
a
Longest time to OIT depletion from Table 3: OIT d ¼ MAX < Std-OIT d , HP-OIT d >.

Table 7. Predicted Time (Years) for OIT Depletion and to Nominal Failure, tNF (i.e., Time for SBS, SBE, PBS, or PBE to Decrease to 50% of the Initial Value)
for MyE-15 and MyEW-15 in Brine
Predicted time (years)
MyE-15 MyEW-15
Shear break Shear break Peel break Peel break Shear break Shear break Peel break Peel break
strength elongation strength elongation strength elongation strength elongation
Temperature
(°C) OIT d a 11.85 kN=m 145 mm 13.95 kN=m 14.25 mm OIT d a 12.35 kN=m 162.5 mm 11.7 kN=m 16.85 mm
95 1.5 1.4 1.2 1.4 1.3 1.9 1.5 1.2 1.3 1.2
85 1.8 2.0 1.8 1.9 1.7 2.0 1.9 1.7 1.7 1.6
75 2.6 2.9 2.9 2.6 2.2 2.7 2.6 2.3 2.2 2.2
65 3.9 4.4 4.3 3.8 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.3 3.0 3.0
50 7.4 8.7 9.3 7 5.0 6.2 6 5.7 4.9 5.1
40 12 14 16 11 7.2 9.1 9 9 6.9 8
30 19 24 30 18 11 13 14 13 10 12
a
Longest time to OIT depletion from Table 3.

65% of the initial value at 85, 75, and 65°C, respectively, but
with no change at 40°C [Fig. 11(a)]. The reduction in peel break
elongation [Fig. 11(b)] was similar to that of peel break strength
[Fig. 11(a)], shear break elongation [Fig. 10(b)], and strength
[Fig. 10(a)]. The peel break elongation began to decrease at approx-
imately 10 months, reaching a residual value after 28 months of
aging at 85°C, and then remained relatively constant over the re-
mainder of the test period. At 75°C, the residual value was reached
after 34 months. At 40°C, the peel break elongation at HAZ did not
show any noticeable change over the test period (Fig. 11). Both
the peak break strength and elongation at T ≥ 65°C are described
by Eq. (7), where Z ¼ PBS (kN) or PBE (mm) is the peel break
strength or elongation at time t (months), ti (months) is the time
at which PBS or PBE first departs from the initial value, ss
(kN=month or mm=month) is the slope of the best fit line for the
decrease in PBS or PBE with aging time, tr (months) is the time at
which they PBS or PBE reach the residual value, and Zr ¼ PBSr
(kN) or PBEr (mm) is the residual value. Adopting an approach
similar to that described previously for shear break strength, equa-
tions and parameters can be obtained for peel break strength (col-
umn Peel break strength in Table 5) and break elongation (column
Peel break elongation in Table 5) to allow Eq. (10) to be solved for
tr and tNF based on PBS and PBE (Tables 6 and 7, respectively).
For MyE-15, both tr and tNF based on PBE were lower than those

© ASCE 04017114-9 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 30
Peel break strength (kN/m)

25

20

15
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

10
40oC
5 65oC
75oC ti(85oC) ti(75oC) ti(65oC)
PBSr
85oC td(85oC)
(a) 0

30
Peel break elongation (mm)

25 Fig. 12. Photograph of tensile testing specimens with seam

20

15

10
40oC
5 65oC PBEr
75oC ti(85oC) ti(75oC) ti(65oC) td(85oC) td(75oC)
85oC
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 32 34 36
(b) Incubation Time (months)

Fig. 11. MyE-15 variation with incubation time at four temperatures

in (a) peel break strength [ti ð65°CÞ ¼ 17.4 months; ti ð75°CÞ ¼
12.4 months; ti ð85°CÞ ¼ 10 months; td ð85°CÞ ¼ 30 months; PBSr ¼ Fig. 13. Photograph of tensile testing specimens with and without
5.1 kN=m]; (b) peel break elongation [ti ð65°CÞ ¼ 14.9 months; seam
ti ð75°CÞ ¼ 12 months; ti ð85°CÞ ¼ 10 months; td ð75°CÞ ¼ 34 months;
td ð85°CÞ ¼ 28 months; PBEr ¼ 28 mm]
60
Tensile break strength

obtained based on PBS, SBS, or SBE (Tables 6 and 7). A similar 50

observation can be made for MyEW-15 except at T ≤ 50°C, at
which the times based on PBS were the lowest.
40
Based on the predictions for SBS, SBE, and PBS in Tables 6
Stress (kN/m)

and 7, at 85°C the values of tr and tNF were 2.6 ≤ tr ≤ 2.7 years
and 1.8 ≤ tNF ≤ 2.0 years for MyE-15 and 2.3 ≤ tr ≤ 2.6 and 1.7 ≤ 30

tNF ≤ 1.9 years for MyEW-15. Thus, irrespective of which GMB or

method of estimating tr and tNF is used, the values were on the 20
order of 2–3 years at 85°C. Lowering the temperature to
50°C gave 10 ≤ tr ≤ 15 years and 7 ≤ tNF ≤ 9.3 years for MyE-15 unaged Tension without seam
unaged Tension with seam
10
and 6.7 ≤ tr ≤ 9 and 4.9 ≤ tNFr ≤ 6 years for MyEW-15, which 36 months Tension without seam
36 months Tension with seam
were still not very high.
0
0 100 200 300 400 500

Tensile Test Elongation (mm)

Tensile tests were conducted to allow a comparison between spec-
imens with and without a weld. They were conducted in accordance
with ASTM D6693-12 (ASTM 2001) using dumbbell-shaped spec-
imens (Figs. 12 and 13). The initial break strength and elongation
for the specimens without a seam (sheet) were higher than for spec-
imens with a seam (Fig. 14). The tensile break strength and elon-
gation of the seam began to decrease with aging (Fig. 14) and
reached 50% of the initial values and a residual value sooner than
did the sheet without seam. The specimens with a seam stretched
until failure occurred in the HAZ adjacent to the weld, and not in
Fig. 14. Load-deformation curve for unaged and 36-month-aged sheet
and welded MyE-15 in a tensile test
the middle (where necking was greatest) as it did for specimens
without a seam (Fig. 13). The HAZ was consistently the weakest
location. Based on the time to nominal failure (i.e., 50% of the
initial value) in the tensile tests, the value for the specimen with
a seam was approximately 67% of that for the sheet aged under
the same conditions based on both tensile strength and elongation.

© ASCE 04017114-10 J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114

 As previously noted, it is hypothesized that the loss of antioxidants
at the surface allowed the degradation that caused the overall
change in physical properties which was magnified in the HAZ
due to morphological changes caused by melting of the adjacent
welded material combined with the difference in thickness between
the HAZ and weld which leads to a stress concentration at the weld.
Summary, Conclusions, and Implications
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The effect of immersing two 1.5-mm-thick HDPE GMBs with dif-
ferent resins in brine (200 g=L TDS, pH ¼ 8.7) on weld degrada-
tion was studied at 40, 65, 75, and 85°C. Both GMBs initially
met the requirements of GRI-GM13 (GRI 2016) for the sheet
and GRI-GM19 (GRI 2015) or the weld. The key observations
from this study were
• There was a statistically significant difference (at the 95%
confidence level) in the initial postwelding OIT with location.
Both Std-OIT o and HP-OIT o were greatest for the GMB away
from the weld and least for the weld, suggesting that heating
of the GMB during welding resulted in some (minor) loss of
antioxidants.
• For all temperatures examined, antioxidant depletion was fastest
for the HAZ and slowest for the weld.
• Failure was observed at the HAZ adjacent to the weld for both
shear and tensile tests on all aged welded specimens.
• The behavior and rate of degradation was similar in both rec-
tangular shear specimens and dog-bone tensile specimens.
• No significant change in shear yield strength and shear yield
elongation was observed during 36 months of aging.
• After 36 months of aging at 40°C, both Std-OIT and HP-OIT
were still depleting, and no significant change in shear or peel
break strength or elongation was observed.
For the specific GMBs and brine examined, the following con-
clusions were reached:
• The peel, shear, and tensile tests all confirmed that for this
initially high quality weld, the actual welded area exhibited no
evidence of aging over 36 months other than modest depletion
of antioxidants.
• At test temperatures of 65, 75, and 85°C, the shear and peel
strength and elongation values for the weld started to decrease
while Std-OIT and HP-OIT continued to deplete and had not
reached a residual value.
• The most critical location with respect to degradation of the dual
wedge welds was the heat-affected zone immediately adjacent to
the weld for both GMBs.
• The initial HP-OIT for one of the GMBs was almost double that
for the other, but this did not correlate with substantially better
performance; thus when comparing GMBs with resins from dif-
ferent resin manufactures (and likely containing different anti-
oxidants), relative performance cannot be estimated based on
the initial index parameters for OIT.
• Based on both tensile strength and elongation, the time to
nominal failure (i.e., 50% of the initial value) for a seam was
approximately 67% of that for the sheet aged under the same
conditions; thus the welds are likely to dominate the service-life
of the GMB.
• Irrespective of which GMB or method of estimating time to
nominal failure was adopted, the time to nominal failure for both
GMBs examined was on the order of 2 years at 85°C. Lowering
the temperature to 50°C, the time to nominal failure increased
and depended on the property examined, but ranged between
7–9 years for MyE-15 and 5–6 years for MyEW-15.
© ASCE 04017114-11
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114
• This study highlights the needs to minimize tension in welds
because they are locations where tensile stress/strain is concen-
trated and the locations where degradation, at least in brine, is
fastest.
The findings from this study should be read in the context of the
following:
• The prolonged sustained high temperatures examined represent
a worst case; in many cases there is a time–temperature history
and periods of lower temperatures will prolong the time to
OIT depletion and nominal failure, and hence will prolong the
service-life of the GMB (e.g., Rowe and Islam 2009).
• The times to nominal failure are based on index tests performed
on samples immersed in brine. In the field, the GMB is usually
only exposed to brine on one side (except in a double-lined
system with a single GMB primary liner, in which case it may
be exposed to brine from above and below—especially near
sumps). Exposure to brine on only one side can be expected to
increase the time to nominal failure; however, the magnitude of
the improvement is unknown.
• The GMB and its welds examined here may remain intact after
the time to nominal failure has been reached in the absence
of tensile stress/strain. Thus the time to nominal value given
here does not represent the service-life of the GMBs in this
brine; factors such as tensile strain also need to be considered
in evaluating the service life. However, the findings do serve as a
warning that elevated temperatures in a brine pond can very sub-
stantially reduce the service life of a GMB. Thus (1) every effort
should be made to minimize temperature, and (2) care needs to
be taken in the selection of an appropriate GMB.
• The welds considered here were high-quality welds; the time to
nominal failure may be faster for poorer-quality welds. More
investigation is needed into the behavior of welds for GMBs
with different resins and AO formulations in different solutions.
• The tests reported herein considered only two GMBs from one
manufacturer (but made from two different resins from different
resin manufacturers). There are many different resins and anti-
oxidant packages; some may perform better or worse than those
examined. The GMBs tested were performed on a commonly
used 1.5-mm HDPE. This manufacturer, as do others, also pro-
duces speciality products said to be better in high temperatures
and in challenging chemical exposure conditions, but these were
not examined in this study.
• The welds examined corresponded to only one ambient and
sheet temperature, one wedge temperature, and one speed and
pressure of welding. These variables together with the geomem-
brane resin and antioxidants and the immersion conditions all
have the potential to affect the aging of the weld. Thus the re-
sults presented herein should not be generalized beyond the
inference that this is an issue deserving much more study.
Acknowledgments
Funding for the development of the research infrastructure was
provided by the Canada Foundation for Innovation, the Ontario
Research Fund, and Queen’s University. The research was funded
by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of
Canada. The support of the Killam Trust in the form of a Killam
Fellowship to Dr. Rowe is gratefully acknowledged. This investi-
gation is part of a broader study being conducted in partnership
with Terrafix Geosynthetics, Terrafix Environmental Technolo-
gies, TAG Environmental, Solmax International, Naue, GSE
Environmental, Ontario Ministry of Environment, AMEC Earth
and Environmental, Golder Associates, Canadian Nuclear Safety
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
 Commission, CTT Group, Knight Piésold, and Thiel Engineering.
The authors appreciate the thoughtful and constructive comments
of the three anonymous reviewers as well as those of Boyd Ramsay
and Richard Thiel. The views expressed herein are those of the
authors and not necessarily those of the people who have assisted
with the research or reviewed of the manuscript.
References
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNICAMP - Universidade Estadual De Campinas on 03/03/21. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Abdelaal, F. B., Rowe, R. K., and Islam, M. Z. (2014). “Effect of leachate
composition on the long-term performance of a HDPE geomembrane.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 42(4), 348–362.
ASTM. (2001). “Standard test method for determining tensile properties of
nonreinforced polyethylene and nonreinforced flexible polypropylene
geomembranes.” ASTM D6693, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for density of plastics by the density-
gradient technique.” ASTM D1505, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012a). “Standard test method for determining the integrity of
no reinforced geomembrane seams produced using thermo-fusion
methods.” ASTM D6392, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012b). “Standard test method for evaluation of stress crack re-
sistance of polyolefin geomembranes using notched constant tensile
load test.” ASTM D5397, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2012c). “Standard test method for measuring the nominal thick-
ness of geosynthetics.” ASTM D5199, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2013). “Standard test method for flow rates of thermoplastics by
extrusion plastometer.” ASTM D1238, West Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2014). “Standard test method for oxidative induction time of
polyolefins by differential scanning calorimetry.” ASTM D3895, West
Conshohocken, PA.
ASTM. (2017). “Standard test method for oxidative induction time of
polyolefin geosynthetics by high-pressure differential scanning calo-
rimetry.” ASTM D5885, West Conshohocken, PA.
Burford, R. P., and Williams, D. R. G. (1979). “The influence of salt
type in the environmental fracture of nylons.” J. Mater. Sci., 14(12),
2881–2886.
DVS. (1996). “Welding of geomembranes from polyethylene (PE) for lin-
ing landfills and contaminated land German guide.” DVS 2225-4,
Deutsches Institut für Normung e.V., Berlin.
Ewais, A. M. R., and Rowe, R. K. (2012). “The effect of thickness on OIT
depletion of HDPE geomembranes made from the same resin.” 2nd Pan
American Geosynthetics Conf., GeoAmericas 2012, Lima, Perú.
Ewais, A. M. R., Rowe, R. K., and Schiers, J. (2014). “Degradation
behavior of HDPE geomembranes with high and low initial HP-OIT.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 42(2), 111–126.
Giroud, J. P. (2005). “Quantification of geosynthetic behavior.” Geosyn-
thetics Int., 12(1), 2–27.
GRI (Geosynthetics Research Institute). (2015). “Standard specification for
seam strength and related properties of thermally bonded polyolefin
geomembranes.” GRI-GM19, Folsom, PA.
GRI (Geosynthetics Research Institute). (2016). “Standard specification for
test properties, testing frequency and recommended warrant for high
density polyethylene (HDPE) smooth and textured geomembranes.”
GRI-GM13, Folsom, PA.
Hsuan, Y. G., and Koerner, R. M. (1998). “Antioxidant depletion lifetime
in high density polyethylene geomembranes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1998)124:6(532), 532–541.
Kavazanjian, E., Andresen, J., and Gutierrez, A. (2017). “Experimental
evaluation of HDPE geomembrane seam strain concentrations.”
Geosynthetics Int., 24(4), 333–342.
Leblanc, J., Akbarzadeh, A., Andrews, J, Lu, H., and Golding, P. (2011).
“Heat extraction methods from salinity-gradient solar ponds and intro-
duction of a novel system of heat extraction for improved efficiency.”
Solar Energy, 85(12), 3103–3142.
Lu, H., Walton, J. C., and Swifte, A. H. P. (2001). “Desalination coupled
with salinity-gradient solar ponds.” Desalination, 136(1–3), 13–23.
© ASCE 04017114-12
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 2018, 144(2): 04017114
Muller, W. (2007). “Welding of HDPE geomembranes.” HDPE geomem-
branes in geotechnics, Springer, Berlin, 379–420.
Muller, W., and Jacob, I. (2003). “Oxidative resistance of high density poly-
ethylene geomembranes.” Polym. Degrad. Stab., 79(1), 161–172.
Peggs, I. D. (1995). “Assessing geomembrane seam strength—Non de-
structively.” Geotechnical Fabrics Rep., Industrial Fabrics Association
International, St. Paul, MN.
Peggs, I. D., Gassner, F., Scheirs, J., Tan, D., Arango, A. M. N., and
Burkard, B. (2014). “Is there a resurgence of stress cracking in HDPE
geomembranes?” Proc., 10th Int. Conf. on Geosynth, Berlin.
Rimal, S., and Rowe, R. K. (2009). “Diffusion modelling of OIT depletion
from HDPE geomembrane in landfill applications.” Geosynthetics Int.,
16(3), 183–196.
Rowe, R. K. (2012). “Design and construction of barrier systems to min-
imize environmental impacts due to municipal solid waste leachate and
gas.” Ind. Geotech. J., 42(4), 223–256.
Rowe, R. K., Abdelaal, F. B., and Brachman, R. W. I. (2013). “Antioxidant
depletion from an HDPE geomembrane with a sand protection layer.”
Geosynthetics Int., 20(2), 73–89.
Rowe, R. K., Abdelaal, F. B., and Islam, M. Z. (2014). “Ageing of HDPE
geomembrane of three different thicknesses.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng, 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001090, 4014005.
Rowe, R. K., and Islam, M. Z. (2009). “Impact on landfill liner time-
temperature history on the service-life of HDPE geomembranes.” Waste
Manage., 29(10), 2689–2699.
Rowe, R. K., Islam, M. Z., Brachman, R. W. I., Arnepalli, D. N., and Ewais,
A. M. R. (2010a). “Antioxidant depletion from an HDPE geomembrane
under simulated landfill conditions.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000302, 930–939.
Rowe, R. K., Islam, M. Z., and Hsuan, Y. G. (2008). “Leachate chemi-
cal composition effects on OIT depletion in an HDPE geomembrane.”
Geosynthetics Int., 15(2), 136–151.
Rowe, R. K., Islam, M. Z., and Hsuan, Y. G. (2010b). “Effects of thickness
on the ageing of HDPE geomembranes.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000207, 299–309.
Rowe, R. K., Quigley, R. M., Brachman, R. W. I., and Booker, J. R. (2004).
Barrier systems for waste disposal facilities, E & FN Spon, London,
587.
Rowe, R. K., Rimal, S., and Sangam, H. (2009). “Ageing of HDPE geo-
membrane exposed to air, water and leachate at different temperatures.”
Geotext. Geomembr., 27(2), 137–151.
Rowe, R. K., and Shoaib, M. (2017). “Long-term performance HDPE
geomembrane seams in MSW leachate.” Can. Geotech. J., 54(12),
1623–1636.
Sangam, H. P., and Rowe, R. K. (2002). “Effects of exposure conditions on
the depletion of antioxidants from high-density polyethylene (HDPE)
geomembranes.” Can. Geotech. J., 39(6), 1221–1230.
Scheirs, J. (2000). Compositional and failure analysis of polymers: A prac-
tical approach, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 804.
Scheirs, J. (2009). A guide to polymeric geomembranes: A practical
approach, Wiley, Chichester, U.K., 572.
Shoaib, M. (2017). “Durability of HDPE geomembrane seams and sheets in
brine and landfill leachate.” Ph.D. thesis, Queen’s Univ., Kingston, ON,
Canada.
Silva, G., and Almanza, R. (2009). “Use of clay as liners in solar ponds.”
Solar Energy, 83(6), 905–919.
Tan, D., Denis, R., Elie, G., Elie, G., Payeur, P., and Cao, D. (2012).
“Evaluation of HDPE geomembrane liners for unconventional gas ex-
traction brine associated water.” 5th Int. Conf., Geosynthetics Middle
East.
Vasile, C. (2000). Handbook of polyolefins, 2nd Ed., Marcel Dekker,
New York, 1001.
Wyzgoslo, M. G., and Novak, G. E. (1987). “Stress cracking of nylon
polymers in aqueous salt solutions. Part 2: Nylon–salt interactions.”
J. Mater. Sci., 22(5), 1715–1723.
Zhang, L., Bouazza, A., Rowe, R. K., and Scheirs, J. (2017). “Effect
of welding parameters on properties of HDPE geomembrane seams.”
Geosynthetics Int., 24(4), 408–418.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.