polymers

Article
Laboratory Investigation of Shear Behavior of
High-Density Polyethylene Geomembrane Interfaces
Wei-Jun Cen * ID
, Hui Wang and Ying-Jie Sun
College of Water Conservancy and Hydropower Engineering, Hohai University, Nanjing 210098, China;
whhhuwh@163.com (H.W.); sunyjhhu@163.com (Y.-J.S.)
* Correspondence: hhucwj@hhu.edu.cn




Received: 6 June 2018; Accepted: 28 June 2018; Published: 4 July 2018


Abstract: As a product of polymeric materials, geomembranes (GMs) are widely used in engineered
systems as impervious barriers due to their low permeability. In this study, a large-scale composite
shear test apparatus was developed to investigate the shear behaviors of various GM interfaces.
A series of direct shear tests were conducted on GM–soil, GM–geotextile, and GM–concrete interfaces.
Two types of high-density polyethylene (HDPE) GMs, a smooth GM and a textured GM, were used
to evaluate the effect of GM-texturing on the shear properties of these interfaces. Based on the
experimental data, the friction angles and adhesions of GM interfaces were calculated using the
Mohr–Coulomb criterion. Test results describing the behavior of GM–soil and GM–geotextile
interfaces from the current study were then compared with results from previous studies. The test
results are shown to verify the reliability of the new large-scale composite shear apparatus. In addition,
this paper presents preliminary experimental results of the GM–concrete interface shear tests.

Keywords: geomembrane interfaces; peak shear strength; residual shear strength; large-scale
composite shear apparatus; direct shear test

1. Introduction
As a product of polymeric materials, geomembranes (GMs) are widely used in the environmental,
geotechnical, hydraulic, and transportation sectors as barrier layers with low permeability, e.g., landfill
basal liners or capping [1], tailings ponds, or leaching ponds in mineral and ore processing, dams
or dykes, reservoirs, canal construction, tunnel construction, and large-area contiguous liners in
road construction [2]. These GM barriers can effectively minimize the penetration of liquids into the
engineered systems. In practical design, GMs are generally combined with soils in the impervious
liners or at the boundary of a drainage layer. To protect GMs from puncture and tear caused by angular
particles, geotextiles (GTs) are commonly used in conjunction with GMs to form composite GM–GT
lining systems [3]. In addition, GMs are increasingly being used in the remediation of existing concrete
dams suffering from leakage damage, and in rockfill dams as the impervious barrier on the upstream
dam surface. For the latter use case, ordinary concrete slabs are commonly placed over the GMs to
form a protective layer, or no-fines concrete can be used as an underlying drainage layer beneath the
GM barrier. For the GM applications mentioned above, the interfaces between GMs and soils, GTs,
or concrete require substantial attention during design. These GM interfaces may exhibit low shear
resistance, and as such could become a potential source of failure. Therefore, the accurate assessment
of the shear strength of GM interfaces is necessary, and laboratory tests can provide an effective means
to evaluate the shear behavior of GM interfaces.
Currently, the methods typically used to investigate the shear behavior of GM interfaces include
the inclined shear test, torsional ring shear test, and direct shear test. The inclined shear test can
accurately reproduce the actual conditions in the lining system, where the normal stresses are generally

Polymers 2018, 10, 734; doi:10.3390/polym10070734 www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2018, 10, 734 2 of 14

low. Izgin and Wasti [4] measured the shear strength parameters of the GM–sand interface using the
inclined shear test, considering the effect of sand particle size on the determined interface friction angles.
Similar tests were conducted by Wasti and Özdüzgün [5] to obtain the shear strength parameters of
the GM–GT interface. However, high normal stresses are not conveniently applied in the inclined
board test because a tall sliding block is required, and a significant overturning moment is frequently
produced. Thus, the torsional ring shear test and direct shear test have served in the past as suitable
alternatives when evaluating high normal stress cases.
Owing to the advantages of the torsional ring shear test apparatus, such as unlimited continuous
shear displacement, constant cross-sectional area during shearing, and convenient data acquisition,
multiple torsional ring shear tests have been reported in previous studies of the shear properties
of the GM interface. Stark et al. [6] described the results of torsional ring shear tests on GM–GT
interfaces considering the effect of GT fiber type, fabric style, and mass per unit area. Jones and
Dixon [7] conducted a series of ring shear tests to investigate the factors regulating the shear strength
of GM–GT interfaces. Eid [8] performed torsional ring shear tests on a GM–geosynthetic clay liner
(GCL) interface to determine the relationship between the shear strength and magnitude of normal
stress. The torsional ring shear test is often an effective method for evaluating the shear behavior of GM
interfaces; however, a shear displacement of 40–60 cm is typically required before the residual interface
shear strength can be mobilized [9]. This can often necessitate substantial time for the completion of
the shear test. However, the classic direct shear apparatus is widely considered to provide a reasonable
estimate of peak strength, and the peak strength is mobilized at a comparatively more marginal shear
displacement than is required for the torsional ring shear test [10].
Over the past few decades, many direct shear tests have been conducted on GM interfaces [11–30],
with various factors being considered during these tests. In the studies mentioned above, different
types of standard-sized or large-scale direct shear apparatuses were employed to simulate some
specific interface types, such as between a GM and soil, GT, or GCL. The differences between these
apparatuses affect the ability to accurately compare tests and often increase the test cost. Thus, the
development of a large-scale composite shear apparatus can provide great convenience and save much
cost for accurately and consistently simulating the shear behaviors of various GM interfaces.
In this study, a large-scale composite shear apparatus with alternative upper shear boxes was
developed to conduct direct shear tests on several types of GM interfaces, including a GM–fine
sand (GM–FS) interface, GM–sandy gravel (GM–SG) interface, GM–geotextile (GM–GT) interface,
GM–ordinary concrete (GM–OC) interface, and GM–no-fines concrete (GM–NFC) interface, all in
accordance with the requirements of ASTM D5321/D5321M-14 [31]. Both smooth and textured high
density polyethylene (HDPE) GMs were used to investigate the influence of GM texturing on the shear
strengths of the different GM interfaces tested. The shear stress versus shear displacement curves were
automatically captured during the tests, and the friction angle and adhesion of each interface were
calculated using the Mohr-Coulomb criterion. The test results of GM–soil and GM–GT interfaces were
compared with the results of previous studies to verify the accuracy of the proposed apparatus, and to
present a summary of the shear properties of the GM interfaces evaluated. Further, the shear strength
parameters of GM–concrete interfaces were provided as the results of a preliminary investigation.

2. Test Apparatus and Scheme

A large-scale displacement-controlled composite shear test apparatus was developed to simulate
the shear behaviors of various GM interfaces. Both monotonic and cyclic shear tests can be conducted
using this apparatus. The apparatus consists of loading and control device, shear boxes, and a data
acquisition system (Figure 1). A rigid frame of size 1400 mm × 500 mm × 1100 mm is equipped to
provide the reflexive normal and shear forces. Three alternative upper shear boxes were designed for
the shear tests of the different GM interfaces. A few details of this apparatus are described below:
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 3 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

Figure
Figure 1.
1. Photograph
Photograph of
of the
the large-scale composite direct
large-scale composite direct shear
shear apparatus.
apparatus.

• Upper shear box: ① For the GM–soil interface shear tests, a 360 mm × 360 mm × 100 mm upper
• Upper shear box: 1 For the GM–soil interface shear tests, a 360 mm × 360 mm × 100 mm upper
square box with an inner cylindrical hole of diameter 300 mm was employed. The cylindrical
square box with an inner cylindrical hole of diameter 300 mm was employed. The cylindrical
loading area was chosen to avoid stress concentration. The soils were poured into cylindrical
loading area was chosen to avoid stress concentration. The soils were poured into cylindrical hole
hole of the upper box in several layers and compacted using a hammer to attain the design
of the upper box in several layers and compacted using a hammer to attain the design density.
density. ② For the GM–GT interface shear tests, the geotextile sample was fixed on a rigid,
2 For the GM–GT interface shear tests, the geotextile sample was fixed on a rigid, trapezoidal
trapezoidal block that served as the upper box, and was then placed on the lower box. The upper
block that served as the upper box, and was then placed on the lower box. The upper box had
box had smaller dimensions than the lower box to prevent displacement-induced loss of the area
smaller dimensions than the lower box to prevent displacement-induced loss of the area of the
of the GM–GT interface during measurement. ③ For the GM–concrete interface shear tests, the
GM–GT interface during measurement. 3 For the GM–concrete interface shear tests, the concrete
concrete blocks were prepared with dimensions of 300 mm × 300 mm × 100 mm and were placed
blocks were prepared with dimensions of 300 mm × 300 mm × 100 mm and were placed directly
directly on the lower box during the shear tests. All upper shear boxes were fixed while the
on the lower box during the shear tests. All upper shear boxes were fixed while the lower shear
lower shear box moved horizontally. All upper shear boxes were fixed in space in horizontal
box moved horizontally. All upper shear boxes were fixed in space in horizontal direction, but it
direction, but it could freely move vertically during shearing.
could freely move vertically during shearing.
• Lower shear box: The lower shear box was made of a 360 mm × 360 mm × 80 mm rigid block
• Lower
with anshear
innerbox: The lower
cylindrical holeshear box was
of diameter made
300 mm.ofAarigid360 mm × 360 mm
cylindrical block×was 80 mm rigidin
inserted block
this
with an inner cylindrical hole of diameter 300 mm. A rigid cylindrical block
cylindrical hole to form a smooth horizontal plane (Figure 2) when the GM interface shear tests was inserted in this
cylindrical
are conducted.holeTheto form a smooth
GM sample washorizontal
cut into aplane (Figure
rectangle 2) when
of size 480 mmthe GM
× 300interface
mm. Theshear tests
rectangle
are conducted. The GM sample was cut into a rectangle of size 480 mm ×
sample was then glued onto the lower box and laterally clamped using four bolts and two steel 300 mm. The rectangle
sample
blocks to was then glued
prevent onto the
the sample fromlower box and
sliding. laterally
During clamped
the whole using process,
shearing four bolts andistwo
there no steel
area
blocks to prevent the sample from sliding. During the whole shearing process,
loss for different GM interfaces. Further, when the rigid cylindrical block is removed, it could there is no area
loss
also for different
be used GM shearing
for soil interfaces. Further,
tests with when the rigid cylindrical
a corresponding upper shear block is removed, it could also
box.
• be used for soil shearing tests with a corresponding upper shear box.
Loading system: The loading system was comprised of a vertical actuator and a horizontal
• Loading
actuator. system: The loading
Vertical pressure was system
appliedwas comprised
to the upper shear of aboxvertical
through actuator and arod
a pressure horizontal
within a
actuator.
range of 0 kN to 100 kN. The shear force was horizontally applied to the lower shear box within
Vertical pressure was applied to the upper shear box through a pressure rod through a
range of 0 kN
a pull-rod at atodisplacement-controlled
100 kN. The shear force shear was horizontally
rate between applied to the lower
0.01 mm/min shearmm/min.
and 5.00 box through The
apull-rod
pull-rod at a displacement-controlled shear rate between 0.01 mm/min
could also act as a push-rod when the shear direction was reversed in cyclic shear and 5.00 mm/min.tests.
The
The pull-rod
precisioncould
error also actloading
of the as a push-rod
system when
was lessthethan
shear direction was reversed in cyclic shear
1 %.
• tests.
Acquisition system: Pressure and displacement transducers 1%.
The precision error of the loading system was less than were employed for the automatic
• Acquisition
acquisition of system: Pressure
the normal and displacement
pressure, shear force, andtransducers were employed
shear displacement. for the automatic
The experimental data
acquisition
were recorded of the normal
using a datapressure,
logger. A shear force,computer
personal and shearwas displacement.
used to controlThetheexperimental
data loggerdata and
were recorded using a data logger. A personal computer was used to control
to store and manipulate the recorded information. The test curves of normal stress versus shear the data logger
and to store and
displacement weremanipulate the recorded information.
plotted automatically. Figure 3 shows The testthecurves
typicalof test
normal stress
curves forversus
both
shear displacement were
monotonic and cyclic shear tests.plotted automatically. Figure 3 shows the typical test curves for both
monotonic and cyclic shear tests.
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 4 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 2. Photographs of lower shear box: (a) With cylindrical hole; and (b) With cylindrical block.
Figure 2. Photographs
Figure of of
2. Photographs lower
lowershear
shearbox:
box: (a) Withcylindrical
(a) With cylindricalhole;
hole; and
and (b)(b) With
With cylindrical
cylindrical block.block.
(a) (b)
Large displacement
Figure 2. Photographs of lower shear box: (a) With cylindrical hole; and (b) With cylindrical block.
Large displacement
Softening
Softening
τ τ

τ τ
stress,

stress,
Large displacement
τ stress,

τ stress,
Softening
Shear

Shear

Hardening
Shear

Shear
Shear stress,

Shear stress,

Hardening

Small displacement
Hardening Small displacement

Shear displacement, u Shear displacement, u

Small displacement
Shear displacement, u Shear displacement, u
(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 3. Typical Shear
sheardisplacement,
test curvesufor: (a) Monotonic shear behavior; Shear
and (b) Cyclic shear
displacement, u behavior.
Figure 3. Typical shear test curves for: (a) Monotonic shear behavior; and (b) Cyclic shear behavior.
Figure 3. Typical shear test (a)curves for: (a) Monotonic shear behavior; and (b)(b) Cyclic shear behavior.
In this study, a series of monotonic shear tests on a variety of GM interfaces (GM–FS, GM–SG,
GM–GT,In this
Figure study,
GM–OC,
3. Typicalaand
series
shear of monotonic
GM–NFC)
test were
curves shear
for:conducted
(a) testsunder
Monotonic onshear
a variety
normal of
behavior; GM
stressesinterfaces
and (b)ofCyclic
50, 100,(GM–FS,
150,
shear andGM–SG,
behavior.200 kPa
In this
GM–GT, study, a series of monotonic shear tests on a variety of
with virgin samples used for each vertical pressure. The vertical pressure was held for 200
GM–OC, and GM–NFC) were conducted under normal GM
stresses ofinterfaces
50, 100, (GM–FS,
150, and GM–SG,
kPa
several
GM–GT,
with GM–OC,
virgin
In
minutes this and
samples
study,
prior to the GM–NFC)
used of
a series
commencement were
formonotonic conducted
each vertical
shear
of the under
pressure.
testaThe
tests on
shearing normal
vertical
variety
until stresses
of GM pressure
it stabilized. of 50, 100,
was(GM–FS,
interfaces
A shear 150,
heldoffor
rate and 200 kPa
several
GM–SG,
1 mm/min
with minutes
virgin
GM–GT,
was prior
alltoshear
setsamples
GM–OC,
for the
used
andcommencement
for each
GM–NFC)
tests. were
The shear of
vertical the shearingunder
pressure.
conducted
displacements test
The until
shearit forces
andvertical
normal stabilized.
pressure
stresses ofA
were wasshear
50, held
100,
recorded rate
atof
for
150, 1s mm/min
several
2and minutes
200 kPa
intervals
priorwas
with set
to the
until the for
virgin all shear
samples
commencement
shear tests.
usedof
force resisted Thebyshear
for
theeach displacements
vertical
shearing
the interface test untiland
pressure.
showed no shear
The forces
vertical
it stabilized.
further were
Apressure
shear
significant recorded 1atmm/min
wasofheld
rate
change. 2 for
s intervals
several
was set
until
minutesthe shear
prior force
to the resisted by
commencement the interface
of the showed
shearing no
test further
until it significant
stabilized.
for all shear tests. The shear displacements and shear forces were recorded at 2 s intervals until theAchange.
shear rate of 1 mm/min
3.force
shearwasTest Materials
setresisted
for all shear tests.
by the The shear
interface displacements
showed andsignificant
no further shear forces were recorded at 2 s intervals
change.
3. Test
until Materials
the shear force resisted by the interface showed no further significant change.
Smooth and textured HDPE GMs with a nominal thickness of 2 mm and a density of 0.94 g/cm3
3. Test Materials
Smooth
(Figure andused
4) were textured
in theHDPE
tests.GMs with a nominal
The symbols GM(S) thickness
and GM(T) of 2inmm
thisand a density
paper signifyofsmooth
0.94 g/cm
and
3
3. Test
(Figure Materials
textured4)GMs,
wererespectively.
used in the tests.
FigureThe symbolsthe
5 presents GM(S) and GM(T)
materials in this
in contact withpaper
the GMsignify
in thesmooth and
shear tests.
Smooth
textured
and textured
GMs,
HDPE
respectively.
GMs
Figure 5
with a nominal
presents the
thickness
materials in
of 2with
contact
mmthe andGMa density
in the
of 0.94
shear
g/cm3
tests.
Smooth and textured HDPE GMs with a nominal thickness of 2 mm and a density
The GTs used in the tests have a mass per area of 300 g/m . The physical properties of the soils and3
2 of 0.94 g/cm
(Figure
The 4)GTs
were usedthe in tests
the tests. aThe symbols GM(S) and The
GM(T) in this paper signify smooth
and and
(Figure
concretes 4)used
wereinare
used used inhave
in the
listed tests.
Tables mass
The per
2. area GM(S)
symbols
1 and of 300 g/m
and2.GM(T) physical
in this properties of the
paper signify soils
smooth
textured GMs,
concretes
textured GMs, respectively.
used respectively. Figure
are listed in Tables 5 presents
Figure15and 2.
presents the
the materials in contact with the GM in the shear tests. tests.
materials in contact with the GM in the shear
The GTs 2 . The physical properties of the soils and
The used in the
GTs used tests
in the have
tests a mass
have a massper
perarea
areaof
of300
300 g/m
g/m2. The physical properties of the soils and
concretes usedused
concretes are are
listed in Tables
listed 1 and
in Tables 1 and2.2.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Photographs of geomembranes (GMs): (a) Smooth GM (GM(S)); and (b) textured GM (GM(T)).
Figure 4. Photographs of geomembranes (GMs): (a) Smooth GM (GM(S)); and (b) textured GM (GM(T)).
(a) (b)
Figure 4. Photographs of geomembranes (GMs): (a) Smooth GM (GM(S)); and (b) textured GM (GM(T)).
Figure 4. Photographs of geomembranes (GMs): (a) Smooth GM (GM(S)); and (b) textured GM (GM(T)).
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 5 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 14

(a) (b) (c)

(d) (e)
Figure 5. Photographs of materials used: (a) Fine sand (FS); (b) Sandy gravel (SG); (c) Geotextile (GT);
Figure 5. Photographs of materials used: (a) Fine sand (FS); (b) Sandy gravel (SG); (c) Geotextile (GT);
(d) Ordinary concrete (OC); and (e) No-fines concrete (NFC).
(d) Ordinary concrete (OC); and (e) No-fines concrete (NFC).
Table 1. Physical properties of the test soils.
Table 1. Physical properties of the test soils.
Coefficients of Coefficients of
Soils Density (g/cm3) d10 (mm) d30 (mm) d60 (mm)
Uniformity Cu Curvature Cc
Fine sand (FS)Density (g/cm
1.77 3 ) Coefficients of 1.11Coefficients of
Soils d10 0.16
(mm) d0.34
30 (mm) 0.65
d60 (mm) 4.06
Sandy gravel (SG) 1.96 0.16 1.42 7.50 Uniformity Cu 1.68Curvature Cc
46.86
Fine sand (FS) 1.77 0.16 0.34 0.65 4.06 1.11
Sandy gravel (SG) 1.96 Table 2. Physical
0.16 properties
1.42 of the test concretes.
7.50 46.86 1.68
Size Range of Porosity Water–Cement Unit Weight (kg/m3)
Concretes
Aggregate
Table (mm) properties
2. Physical (%) of Ratio (w/c)concretes.
the test Water Cement Aggregate
Ordinary concrete (OC) 5–10 - 0.5 190 404 1806
No-fines concrete (NFC) 5–20 20 0.3 113 378 1343
Size Range of Porosity Water–Cement Unit Weight (kg/m3 )
Concretes Aggregate (mm) (%) Ratio (w/c) Water Cement Aggregate
4. Test Results
Ordinary concrete (OC) 5–10 - 0.5 190 404 1806
4.1. GM–Soil
No-fines Interface
concrete (NFC) 5–20 20 0.3 113 378 1343

Figure 6 shows the plots of shear stress versus shear displacement for the GM(S/T)–FS interfaces.
4. Test Results
Owing to the influence of GM texturing, the shear strength curves of these two interfaces exhibited
dissimilar shapes. After the GM(S)–FS interface attained its peak shear stress, the shear stress
4.1. GM–Soil
graduallyInterface
decreased to a stable value, while the peak shear stress of the GM(T)–FS interface rapidly
dropped to a residual value where it remained stable under further shear displacement. It can be
Figure 6 shows the plots of shear stress versus shear displacement for the GM(S/T)–FS interfaces.
observed that the GM(T)–FS interface exhibited higher peak and residual shear stresses than the
Owing to the influence of GM texturing, the shear strength curves of these two interfaces exhibited
GM(S)–FS interface.
dissimilarFigure
shapes. After the
7 shows theshear
GM(S)–FS interface
behavior attained its peak
of the GM(S/T)–SG shear
interface. stress,tothe
Similar theshear
GM–FS stress gradually
interface,
decreased
the GM texturing also exerted an apparent influence on the shear stress versus shear displacement to a
to a stable value, while the peak shear stress of the GM(T)–FS interface rapidly dropped
residual value
curves. where ittoremained
Compared stable
the GM(S)–SG under further
interface, shear
higher peak anddisplacement.
residual shearItstresses
can bewere
observed that the
obtained
GM(T)–FS
for theinterface
GM(T)–SG exhibited
interfacehigher
under apeak andapplied
similar residual shearstress.
normal stresses
Thethan the GM(S)–FS
reduction in the peakinterface.
shear
stress was
Figure more significant
7 shows for the GM–SG
the shear behavior of theinterface
GM(S/T)–SGthan for the GM–FS
interface. interface,
Similar to theasGM–FS
observedinterface,
by
comparing Figures 6 and 7. The differences in the experimental data from the
the GM texturing also exerted an apparent influence on the shear stress versus shear displacement GM(S/T)–FS and
GM(S/T)–SG
curves. Compared interface tests also revealed
to the GM(S)–SG that higher
interface, the interface
peak shear behaviorsshear
and residual were stresses
influenced by both
were obtained
the particle size and gradation of the soils. For soils with large and angular particles, e.g., SG, they
for the GM(T)–SG interface under a similar applied normal stress. The reduction in the peak shear
stress was more significant for the GM–SG interface than for the GM–FS interface, as observed by
comparing Figures 6 and 7. The differences in the experimental data from the GM(S/T)–FS and
GM(S/T)–SG interface tests also revealed that the interface shear behaviors were influenced by both
the particle size and gradation of the soils. For soils with large and angular particles, e.g., SG, they can
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 6 of 14
Polymers 2018,
Polymers 2018, 10,
10, xx FOR
FOR PEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 66 of
of 14
14

can presented
can presented
presented relatively
relatively
relatively high
high high shear
shearshear strength
strength of GM(S/T)-soil
GM(S/T)-soil
of GM(S/T)-soil
strength of interface
interface due
interface due to
to to
due the
thethe interlock
interlock mechanism
mechanism
interlock mechanism
between
between particles
particles and
and geomembranes.
geomembranes.
between particles and geomembranes.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure6.6.
Figure
Figure 6.Shear
Shearstress
Shear stressversus
stress versusshear
versus shear
shear displacement:
displacement:
displacement: (a)
(a)
(a) GM(S)–FS
GM(S)–FS
GM(S)–FS interface;
interface;
interface; andand
and (b)
(b)
(b) GM(T)–FS
GM(T)–FS
GM(T)–FS interface.
interface.
interface.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure 7.
Figure 7. Shear
Shear stress
stress versus
versus shear
shear displacement:
displacement: (a)
(a) GM(S)–SG
GM(S)–SG interface;
interface; and
and (b)
(b) GM(T)–SG
GM(T)–SG interface.
interface.
Figure 7. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–SG interface; and (b) GM(T)–SG interface.

4.2. GM–GT
4.2. GM–GT Interface
Interface
4.2. GM–GT Interface
Figure 88 shows
Figure shows thethe shear
shear behavior
behavior of of the
the GM(S/T)–GT
GM(S/T)–GT interface.
interface. For
For the
the GM(S)–GT
GM(S)–GT interface,
interface,
Figure 8 shows the shear behavior of the GM(S/T)–GT interface. For the GM(S)–GT interface,
shown in
shown in Figure
Figure 8a,8a, there
there was
was an an initial
initial sharp
sharp increase
increase in in shear
shear stress
stress as
as soon
soon as as the
the shear
shear
shown in Figure 8a, there was an initial sharp increase in shear stress as soon as the shear displacement
displacement began, followed by a marginal loss of peak shear
displacement began, followed by a marginal loss of peak shear stress with further shear stress with further shear
began, followed by a marginal loss of peak shear stress with further shear displacement. The peak
displacement. The
displacement. The peak
peak shear
shear stress
stress of
of this
this interface
interface typically
typically occurred
occurred at
at aa shear
shear displacement
displacement of of less
less
shear stress of this interface typically occurred at a shear displacement of less than 0.4 mm, with the
than 0.4
than 0.4 mm,
mm, with
with the
the shear
shear stress
stress decreasing
decreasing by by 20–30%
20–30% to to the
the residual
residual stress
stress within
within aa shear
shear
shear stress decreasing by 20–30% to the residual stress within a shear displacement of approximately
displacement of approximately
displacement of approximately 10–15 mm.10–15 mm.
10–15 mm.
Figure 8b
Figure 8b shows
shows thethe relationship
relationship between
between shear
shear stress
stress and
and shear
shear displacement
displacement for for the
the GM(T)–
GM(T)–
Figure 8b shows the relationship between shear stress and shear displacement for the GM(T)–GT
GT interface.
GT interface. In
In contrast
contrast with
with the
the GM(S)–GT
GM(S)–GT interface,
interface, the
the shear
shear stresses
stresses increased
increased to to peak
peak values
values
interface. In contrast with the GM(S)–GT interface, the shear stresses increased to peak values through
through two distinct phases. The peak shear strength of the GM(T) interface
through two distinct phases. The peak shear strength of the GM(T) interface typically occurred attypically occurred at aa
two distinct phases. The peak shear strength of the GM(T) interface typically occurred at a displacement
displacement between
displacement between 66 mm mm and
and 1313 mm,
mm, which
which was
was aa significantly
significantly larger
larger displacement
displacement than than that
that
between 6 mm and 13 mm, which was a significantly larger displacement than that exhibited by the
exhibited by the GM(S) interface at peak shear strength, depending on the magnitude
exhibited by the GM(S) interface at peak shear strength, depending on the magnitude of the applied of the applied
GM(S) interface at peak shear strength, depending on the magnitude of the applied normal stress
normal stress
normal stress (50–200
(50–200 kPa).
kPa). Compared
Compared to to the
the GM(S)–GT
GM(S)–GT interface,
interface, the
the GM(T)–GT
GM(T)–GT interface
interface exhibited
exhibited
(50–200 kPa). Compared to the GM(S)–GT interface, the GM(T)–GT interface exhibited a more evident
aa more
more evident
evident softening
softening behavior,
behavior, with
with aa 25–40%
25–40% reduction
reduction in in peak
peak shear
shear stress
stress within
within aa residual
residual
softening behavior, with a 25–40% reduction in peak shear stress within a residual shear displacement
shear displacement of approximately
shear displacement of approximately 20–50 mm. 20–50 mm.
of approximately 20–50 mm.
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 7 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 14

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–GT interface; and (b) GM(T)–GT
Figure 8. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–GT interface; and (b) GM(T)–GT interface.
interface.

4.3. 4.3.
GM–Concrete Interface
GM–Concrete Interface
Figure 9 shows
Figure 9 showsthethe
shear
shearstress versus
stress versusshear
sheardisplacement
displacementcurves
curves for
for the GM(S/T)–OCinterfaces.
the GM(S/T)–OC interfaces.
TheThe
shear stresses
shear of these
stresses of thesetwotwointerfaces increased
interfaces increasedsharply
sharplybefore
before attaining their peaks,
attaining their peaks,after
afterwhich
which
softening behavior occurred. The peak shear stresses of the GM(S)–OC interface were
softening behavior occurred. The peak shear stresses of the GM(S)–OC interface were typically 1–5 typically 1–5 kPa
lower
kPathan
lowerthat
thanofthat
the of
GM(T)–OC
the GM(T)–OC interface, depending
interface, dependingonon the
thenormal
normalstress
stress applied (50–200kPa).
applied (50–200 kPa).
TheThe
shear displacements
shear displacements corresponding
correspondingtotothe thepeak
peakshear
shearstresses
stresses of
of the
the GM(S)–OC interfacewere
GM(S)–OC interface were
approximately
approximately 0.3 mm
0.3 mmsmaller thanthan
smaller those of the
those of GM(T)–OC
the GM(T)–OC interface. The The
interface. reductions of the
reductions ofpeak shear
the peak
shearofstresses
stresses of the GM(S)–OC
the GM(S)–OC interface
interface were were approximately
approximately identicalidentical
to those to those
of the of the GM(T)–OC
GM(T)–OC interface.
interface.
In all, In all, the GM-texturing
the GM-texturing exhibitedinfluence
exhibited negligible negligibleoninfluence
the shearon behavior
the shear behavior of the GM–OC
of the GM–OC interface.
interface.

(a) (b)
Figure 9. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–OC interface; and (b) GM(T)–OC interface.
Figure 9. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–OC interface; and (b) GM(T)–OC
interface.
Figure 10 shows the shear behavior of the GM(S/T)–NFC interface. It was observed that the shear
behaviorFigure
of the10GM(S)–NFC interface
shows the shear was of
behavior distinct from that ofinterface.
the GM(S/T)–NFC the GM(T)–NFC interface.
It was observed thatWhile both
the shear
interfaces
behaviorexhibited an initial sharp
of the GM(S)–NFC increase,
interface for the
was distinct GM(S)–NFC
from interface, theinterface.
that of the GM(T)–NFC peak shear
Whilestresses
both
wereinterfaces
typicallyexhibited
attainedan at initial
a shear sharp increase, for
displacement the GM(S)–NFC
below 1.2 mm, while interface,
for thethe peak shear interface,
GM(T)–NFC stresses
were typically attained at a shear displacement below 1.2 mm, while for the GM(T)–NFC
the shear stresses continued to gradually increase to peak values at a shear displacement in the range of interface,
themm.
2.5–4 shear
Thestresses continued
peak shear to gradually
stresses increase
corresponding toto peak values
normal at aofshear
stresses displacement
50, 100, 150, and 200in the
kParange
of the
of 2.5–4 mm.
GM(S)–NFC The peak
interface are shear
14.57,stresses corresponding
24.10, 35.31, and 46.52to normal
kPa, stresses of
respectively, 50, 100,
while the150, and
peak 200 stresses
shear kPa of
theGM(T)–NFC
of the GM(S)–NFC interface
interface are
were 14.57, 24.10,
20.45, 35.31,
34.30, and
49.26, 46.52
and 65.68kPa, respectively,
kPa, respectively. while the
This peak shear
indicates that
stresses of the GM(T)–NFC interface were 20.45, 34.30, 49.26, and 65.68
the GM texturing increased the peak shear stress values and the corresponding shear displacementskPa, respectively. This
for indicates
a GM–NFC thatinterface.
the GM texturing
Subsequentincreased thepeak,
to the peak the
shear stressstress
shear values and the
values of corresponding shear
these two interfaces
Polymers 2018, 10, 734
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW
8 of 14
8 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 14
displacements for a GM–NFC interface. Subsequent to the peak, the shear stress values of these two
fundamentally remained stable, and softening behaviors were not evident. In effect, the interface
interfaces fundamentally
displacements remained
for a GM–NFC stable,
interface. and softening
Subsequent behaviors
to the peak, werestress
the shear not evident.
values ofIn effect,
these twothe
resistances remained
interfaces approximately
fundamentally constant
remained stable, even
and at a large
softening shear
behaviorsdisplacement.
were not evident.
interface resistances remained approximately constant even at a large shear displacement. In effect, the
interface resistances remained approximately constant even at a large shear displacement.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure10.10.Shear
Shearstress
stressversus
versus shear
shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–NFC
displacement: (a) GM(S)–NFCinterface;
interface; and
and (b)(b) GM(T)–NFC
GM(T)–NFC
Figure 10. Shear stress versus shear displacement: (a) GM(S)–NFC interface; and (b) GM(T)–NFC interface.
interface.
interface.

TheThe
peak
Thepeakandand
peak residual
and shear
residual
residual strength
shear
shear strengthenvelopes
strength envelopes of
envelopes the
ofthe various
thevarious
variousGM GMinterfaces
interfaces are
areare
interfaces plotted
plotted in inin
plotted
Figures
Figures
Figures 1111and
11 and and 12.These
12.12.
TheseThese envelopescan
envelopes
envelopes canbe
can expressed
expressed as
beexpressed asaaafunction
as functionofofthe
function normal
the
the normal
normalstress using
stress
stress thethe
using
using the
Mohr–Coulomb
Mohr–Coulomb
Mohr–Coulomb criterion:
criterion:
criterion:
τττ==
=ccc+++σ tanδδδ
tan
σσnn tan (1) (1)(1)
n

where where
where τ ispeak
τ is τthe isthe or
thepeakresidual
peak shear
ororresidual
residual stress,
shear
shear stress,
stress, cc isispeak
c is the the or residual
thepeak
peak adhesion,
ororresidual
residual σn σisnσthe
adhesion,
adhesion, normal
is the stress,
normal
n is the normal
and δ stress, peakδorisresidual
is the and the peakfriction angle.
stress, and δ is the peak or residual friction angle.
or residual friction angle.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) Figure 11. Cont. (d)

Polymers 2018, 10, 734 9 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14
Polymers 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 14

(e)
(e)
Figure
Figure 11. Peak shear stress versusnormal
normalstress:
stress:(a)
(a)GM–FS
GM–FS interface;
interface; (b) GM–SG
GM–SGinterface;
interface;(c) GM–
Figure 11.11. Peak
Peak shear
shear stress
stress versus
versus normal stress: (a) GM–FS interface; (b)(b)GM–SG interface; (c)
(c) GM–
GM–GT
GT GT interface;
interface; (d)(d) GM–OC
GM–OC interface;
interface; and
and (e)
(e) GM–NFC
GM–NFC interface.
interface.
interface; (d) GM–OC interface; and (e) GM–NFC interface.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(c) (d)

(e)

Figure 12. Residual shear stress versus normal stress:

(e) (a) GM–FS interface; (b) GM–SG interface; (c)
GM–GT interface; (d) GM–OC interface; and (e) GM–NFC interface.
Figure 12.12.Residual
Figure Residual shear stress versus
shear stress versusnormal
normalstress:
stress:
(a)(a) GM–FS
GM–FS interface;
interface; (b) GM–SG
(b) GM–SG interface;
interface; (c)
(c)GM–GT
GM–GTinterface;
interface;(d)
(d)GM–OC
GM–OC interface;
interface; and
and (e) (e) GM–NFC
GM–NFC interface.
interface.
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 10 of 14

Table 3 summarizes the shear strength parameters for the peak and residual envelopes of several
GM interfaces using a regression analysis of the experimental data presented in Figures 11 and 12.
The correlation coefficients are all between 0.96 and 1.00. It was observed that the friction angles of the
GM(T) interfaces are typically higher than those of the GM(S) interfaces, and that the residual friction
angle of each interface is 2–6◦ lower than the peak friction angle. The GM(T) interfaces exhibited
higher peak adhesions.

Table 3. Shear strength parameters of GM interfaces.

Peak Shear Strength Residual Shear Strength

Interface Friction Adhesion c Correlation Friction Adhesion c Correlation
Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa) Coefficient R2 Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa) Coefficient R2
GM(S)–FS 28.96 0.50 0.9891 22.75 4.66 0.9857
GM(T)–FS 32.72 20.65 0.9875 31.14 17.25 0.9926
GM(S)–SG 30.62 1.86 0.9875 24.64 5.59 0.9769
GM(T)–SG 36.81 12.79 0.9983 33.81 3.35 0.9991
GM(S)–GT 11.61 0 0.9841 10.75 0 0.9684
GM(T)–GT 20.88 5.62 0.9981 16.37 0 0.9937
GM(S)–OC 17.57 1.83 0.9990 14.32 0 0.9919
GM(T)–OC 18.81 2.1 0.9985 16.29 0 0.9920
GM(S)–NFC 12.68 2.52 0.9965 12.54 1.26 0.9986
GM(T)–NFC 16.77 4.76 0.9985 14.94 4.39 0.9971

5. Comparison and Discussion

5.1. GM–Soil Interface

In this study, the friction angles of the GM–FS/SG interfaces are in a range of typical values
published by Izgin and Wasti [4], Frost et al. [22], and Stark and Santoyo [32]. The use of textured
GM in the GM(T)-soil tests obviously increases the friction angles by 12–15% compared with the
GM(S)–soil interface. Additionally, the friction angles of the GM(S)–SG interface are approximately
2◦ –4◦ higher than those of the GM(S)–FS interface. It is therefore noted that the shear resistances of
GM–soil interfaces are heavily influenced by GM texturing, as well as by the gradation and particle
size of the soil. These are in accord with the general conclusion from previous studies summarized in
Table 4. Undoubtedly, the comparison of test results is bound to reveal a few discrepancies between
this paper and previous research as previous studies used soil with different physical properties.

Table 4. Summary of GM(S/T)–soil interface shear strength parameters from previous studies.

Peak shear Strength Residual Shear Strength

Normal
Source Interface Friction Adhesion Friction Adhesion c
Stress (kPa)
Angle δ (◦ ) c (kPa) Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa)
GM(S)–concrete sand 18 - - -
Mitchell et al. [11] 158, 316, 479 GM(S)–Ottawa sand 18 - - -
GM(S)–Misa Schist sand 17 - - -
GM(S)–Ottawa sand 22 2.76 - -
GM(T)–Ottawa sand 32 5.00 - -
Izgin and Wasti [4] 5–50
GM(S)–Ottawa stone 31 4.25 - -
GM(T)–Ottawa stone 37 2.89 - -
Bergado et al. [16] 150–400 GM(S)–compacted clay 10.5 - - -

-
GM(S)–Silty sand 21.4–23.7 1.77–3.10 23.6–25.1 −12.6–−2.38
Fleming et al. [17]
GM(S)–6% Sand-bentonite 19.8–21.1 2.43–2.80 16.6–19.2 2.30–3.57
GM(S)–Native soil 15.6 0.00 - -
Mariappan et al. [33] 100, 200, 300
GM(T)–Native soil 23 0.00 - -
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 11 of 14

Table 4. Cont.

Peak shear Strength Residual Shear Strength

Normal
Source Interface Friction Adhesion Friction Adhesion c
Stress (kPa)
Angle δ (◦ ) c (kPa) Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa)
GM(S)–Silt: bentonite (100:10) 5.2 0.00 - -
GM(S)–Sand: bentonite (100:10) 6.1 0.00 - -
GM(S)–Native soil 19.8 0.00 - -
Mariappan et al. [23] 100, 200, 300
GM(T)–Silt: bentonite (100:10) 9.1 0.00 - -
GM(T)–Sand: bentonite (100:10) 10.9 0.00 - -
GM(T)–Native soil 15.2 9.30 - -
GM(S)–Ottawa 20/30 sand 24.4–25.5 - 15.5–16.5 -
GM(T)–Ottawa 20/30 sand 37.5–40.2 - 22.8–27.0 -
Frost et al. [22] 100, 300
GM(S)–Blasting sand 24.9–25.5 - 19.5–20.0 -
GM(T)–Blasting sand 37.1–37.2 - 26.2–27.2 -
GM(S)–Urbana glacial till 13–14 - - -
17, 50, 100, GM(T)–Urbana glacial till 30–36 - - -
Stark and Santoyo [32]
200, 400 GM(S)–Ottawa sand 19–22 - - -
GM(T)–Ottawa sand 27–32 - - -

5.2. GM–GT Interface

Table 5 presents a comparison of the present experimental results produced using the proposed
large-scale composite shear test apparatus with the findings of the limited published work detailing
the shear testing of GM(S/T)–GT interface. The friction angles of the GM(T)–GT interfaces determined
by the current study are markedly higher than those of the GM(S)–GT interfaces. Note that the peak
friction angle (11.61◦ ) of the GM(S)–GT interface in the present study is adequately consistent with the
values obtained by Wasti and Özdüzgün [5] and Akpinar and Benson [34]. Owing to the variations in
the shear apparatuses employed, the range of normal stresses applied, and the physical properties
of the geosynthetics used, a few discrepancies between the present results and reported studies can
be observed.

Table 5. Comparison of previous GM(S/T)–GT interface peak shear strength parameters with the
results of present study.

GM(S)–GT Interface GM(T)–GT Interface

Shear Apparatus Normal Stress
Source Friction Adhesion c Friction Adhesion c
(kPa)
Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa) Angle δ (◦ ) (kPa)
A modified Karol–Warner
Mitchell et al. [11] direct shear 158, 316, 479 6–11 - - -
testing apparatus
A modified Bromhead ring
Stark et al. [6] 48, 96, 192, 285 - - 32 -
shear apparatus
Triplett and Fox [12] Pullout shear machine 1–486 9.9 0.3 31.7 7.4
Wasti and
Inclined board apparatus 5–50 12.28 3.34 27 30
Özdüzgün [5]
Akpinar and A double-interface
7.5–49.5 11.6–14.5 - 25.4–27.7 -
Benson [34] shear device
A small-scale direct
Li and Gilbert [18] - - - 24–28 -
shear apparatus
A large direct shear
Feng et al. [29] 50, 100, 200 - - 22.8 5.62
test device
A large-scale
Present study 50, 100, 150, 200 12.96 -3.38 20.88 5.62
composite apparatus

5.3. GM–Concrete Interface

Limited investigations have been conducted on the shear behaviors of GM–concrete interfaces.
However, the stability assessment of the GM–concrete interface is also of importance in practical
engineering, particularly in dam engineering. Therefore, in place of comparison with extant research
data, this paper presents the preliminary experimental results of the GM–concrete interface shear tests.
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 12 of 14

Similar to the GM–soil and GM–GT interfaces, the friction angles of the GM(S)–concrete interface are
typically lower than those of the GM(T)–concrete interface. Additionally, though the coarse aggregate
content of the NFC is higher than that of the OC, the friction angles of the GM–NFC interfaces are
2◦ –5◦ lower than those of the GM–OC interfaces. This difference may be attributed to the fact that the
effective contact per unit area of the GM–NFC interface is smaller than that of the GM–OC interface;
the angularity of the aggregates is not the main factor governing the interface shear behavior.

6. Conclusions
In this study, a large-scale composite shear apparatus was developed and a series of monotonic
shear tests were conducted on various types of GM interfaces. Two types of HDPE GMs, a smooth
GM and a textured GM, were used to investigate the effect of GM texturing on the shear properties of
GM interfaces. The friction angles and adhesions of various GM interfaces were compared to those
determined in previous studies. The test results demonstrate that the developed shear apparatus can
be effectively employed to investigate the shear behaviors of various types of GM interfaces. Based on
the test results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

(1) The shear strength curves of GM–soil interfaces are clearly influenced by GM texturing.
Compared to GM(S)–soil interfaces, higher peak shear stresses and corresponding shear
displacements were observed for the GM(T)–soil interfaces. In general, the friction angles
of the GM(T)–soil interfaces are 12–15% higher than those of GM(S)–soil interfaces. The friction
angles of the GM–FS interface are typically lower than those of the GM–SG interface, owing to the
effect of the gradation and particle size of these two types of soil. When compared to the results
of previous studies, the strength parameters of the present study are in the range of typically
observed values.
(2) The shear behavior of the GM–GT interface is also affected by GM texturing. The experimental
curves present an apparent difference in behavior between the GM(S)–GT and GM(T)–GT
interfaces. The GM(T)–GT interface exhibits a more evident softening behavior, with a higher
reduction in the peak shear stress than the GM(S)–GT interface. The friction angles of the
GM(T)–GT interface are 6◦ –8◦ higher than those of the GM(S)–GT interface. The peak friction
angle of the GM–GT interface in this study is approximately equal to the values in some previously
reported studies.
(3) The peak friction angle and adhesion of the GM(S)–OC interface are 17.57◦ and 1.83 kPa,
respectively, and those of the GM(T)–OC interface are 18.81◦ and 2.1 kPa, respectively. Therefore,
it can be stated that GM texturing exerts a negligible influence on the peak shear behavior of the
GM–OC interface. By contrast, GM texturing increases the peak shear strength of the GM–NFC
interface. The post-peak shear resistances of the GM–NFC interfaces remain approximately
constant, notwithstanding the large shear displacement. Additionally, the friction angles of the
GM–NFC interfaces are 2◦ –5◦ lower than those of the GM–OC interfaces, which may be attributed
to the fact that the effective contact per unit area of the GM–NFC interface is smaller than that of
the GM–OC interface.

In summary, the large-scale composite shear apparatus used in this study provided reasonable
test results of different GM interfaces. The comparison between present and previous studies for
GM-soil and GM-GT interfaces can give technical guidance for engineer design and construction.
Additionally, the preliminary test results of GM-concrete interface make up for the lack of data about
this type of interface, and further investigation on shear properties of GM-concrete interface still needs
to be conducted by laboratory tests or theoretic analysis.
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 13 of 14

Author Contributions: The idea for this work comes from W.-J.C. Design of experiments and evaluation of results
was performed by W.-J.C., H.W., and Y.-J.S. Presentation of the results and the structure of the manuscript were
discussed with all authors; H.W. and W.J.C. wrote the draft and included corrections suggested by the coauthors.
Funding: This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51679073),
the Natural Science Foundation of Jiangsu Province (Grant No. BK20141418), and the Priority Academic Program
Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions.
Acknowledgments: The authors would like to acknowledge the constructive suggestions and great help from
Si-Hong Liu.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Koerner, G.R.; Koerner, R.M. Long-term temperature monitoring of geomembranes at dry and wet landfills.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 241, 72–77. [CrossRef]
2. Koerner, R.M. Designing with Geosynthetics, 6th ed.; Xlibris Corporation: Bloomington, IN, USA, 2012; Volume 1.
3. Giroud, J.P. Geotextiles and geomembranes. Geotext. Geomembr. 1984, 1, 5–40. [CrossRef]
4. Izgin, M.; Wasti, Y. Geomembrane–sand interface frictional properties as determined by inclined board and
shear box tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 1998, 16, 207–219. [CrossRef]
5. Wasti, Y.; Özdüzgün, Z.B. Geomembrane-geotextile interface shear properties as determined by inclined
board and direct shear box tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 2001, 19, 45–57. [CrossRef]
6. Stark, T.D.; Williamson, T.A.; Eid, H.T. HDPE geomembrane/geotextile interface shear strength. J. Geotech. Eng.
1996, 122, 197–203. [CrossRef]
7. Jones, D.R.V.; Dixon, N. Shear strength properties of geomembrane/geotextile interfaces. Geotext. Geomembr.
1998, 16, 45–71. [CrossRef]
8. Eid, H.T. Shear strength of geosynthetic composite systems for design of landfill liner and cover slopes.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2011, 29, 335–344. [CrossRef]
9. Stark, T.D.; Poeppel, A.R. Landfill liner interface strengths from torsional-ring-shear tests. J. Geotech. Eng.
1994, 120, 597–615. [CrossRef]
10. Zabielsk-Adamska, K. Shear strength parameters of compacted fly ash–HDPE geomembrane interfaces.
Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 91–102. [CrossRef]
11. Mitchell, J.K.; Seed, R.B.; Seed, H.B. Kettleman Hills waste landfill slope failure. I: Liner-System Properties.
J. Geotech. Eng. 1990, 116, 647–668. [CrossRef]
12. Triplett, E.J.; Fox, P.J. Shear strength of HDPE geomembrane/geosynthetic clay liner interfaces. J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng. 2001, 127, 543–552. [CrossRef]
13. Chiu, P.; Fox, P.J. Internal and interface shear strengths of unreinforced and needle-punched geosynthetic
clay liners. Geosynth. Int. 2004, 11, 176–199. [CrossRef]
14. Hebeler, G.L.; Frost, J.D.; Myers, A.T. Quantifying hook and loop interaction in textured geomembrane–
geotextile systems. Geotext. Geomembr. 2005, 23, 77–105. [CrossRef]
15. McCartney, J.S.; Zornberg, J.G.; Swan, R.H. Effect of geomembrane texturing on GCL–geomembrane interface
shear strength. In Waste Containment and Remediation–GeoFrontiers; American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2005; pp. 1–11.
16. Bergado, D.T.; Ramana, G.V.; Sia, H.I. Evaluation of interface shear strength of composite liner system and
stability analysis for a landfill lining system in Thailand. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 371–393. [CrossRef]
17. Fleming, I.R.; Sharma, J.S.; Jogi, M.B. Shear strength of geomembrane–soil interface under unsaturated
conditions. Geotext. Geomembr. 2006, 24, 274–284. [CrossRef]
18. Li, M.H.; Gilbert, R.B. Technical note mechanism of post-peak strength reduction for textured geomembrane–
nonwoven geotextile interfaces. Geosynth. Int. 2006, 13, 206–209. [CrossRef]
19. Bacas, B.M.; Cañizal, J.; Konietzky, H. Shear strength behavior of geotextile/geomembrane interfaces. J. Rock
Mech. Geotech. Eng. 2015, 7, 638–645. [CrossRef]
20. Fox, P.J.; Ross, J.D. Relationship between NP GCL internal and HDPE GMX/NP GCL interface shear
strengths. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2010, 137, 743–753. [CrossRef]
21. Fox, P.J.; Ross, J.D.; Sura, J.M.; Thiel, R.S. Geomembrane damage due to static and cyclic shearing over
compacted gravelly sand. Geosynth. Int. 2011, 18, 272–279. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2018, 10, 734 14 of 14

22. Frost, J.D.; Kim, D.; Lee, S.W. Microscale geomembrane-granular material interactions. KSCE J. Civ. Eng.
2011, 16, 79–92. [CrossRef]
23. Mariappan, S.; Kamon, M.; Ali, F.H.; Katsumi, T.; Akai, T.; Inui, T.; Nishimura, M. Performances of landfill
liners under dry and wet conditions. Geotech. Geol. Eng. 2011, 29, 881. [CrossRef]
24. Bacas, B.M.; Konietzky, H.; Berini, J.C.; Sagaseta, C. A new constitutive model for textured geomembrane/
geotextile interfaces. Geotext. Geomembr. 2011, 29, 137–148. [CrossRef]
25. Brachman, R.W.I.; Sabir, A. Long-term assessment of a layered-geotextile protection layer for geomembranes.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2012, 139, 752–764. [CrossRef]
26. Fox, P.J.; Thielmann, S.S. Interface shear damage to a HDPE geomembrane. II: Gravel drainage layer.
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014, 140, 04014040. [CrossRef]
27. Fox, P.J.; Thielmann, S.S.; Stern, A.N.; Athanassopoulos, C. Interface shear damage to a HDPE geomembrane.
I: Gravelly compacted clay liner. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2014, 140, 04014039. [CrossRef]
28. Feng, S.J.; Cheng, D. Shear strength between soil/geomembrane and geotextile/geomembrane interfaces.
In Tunneling and Underground Construction; American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE): Reston, VA, USA, 2014.
29. Feng, S.J.; Lu, S.F. Repeated shear behaviors of geotextile/geomembrane and geomembrane/clay interfaces.
Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 273. [CrossRef]
30. Vangla, P.; Gali, M.L. Shear behavior of sand-smooth geomembrane interfaces through micro-topographical
analysis. Geotext. Geomembr. 2016, 44, 592–603. [CrossRef]
31. ASTM Standards: D 5321-Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and Geosynthetic or
Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method; Voluntary Organization: West Conshohocken,
PA, USA, 2002.
32. Stark, T.D.; Santoyo, R.F. Soil/geosynthetic interface strengths from torsional ring shear tests. In Proceedings
of the Geotechnical Frontiers 2017, Orlando, FL, USA, 12–15 March 2017; pp. 260–268.
33. Mariappan, S.; Kamon, M.; Ali, F.H.; Katsumi, T.; Akai, T. Landfill interface study on liner member selection
for stability. Electron. J. Geotech. Eng. 2008, 13, 1–14.
34. Akpinar, M.V.; Benson, C.H. Effect of temperature on shear strength of two geomembrane–geotextile
interfaces. Geotext. Geomembr. 2005, 23, 443–453. [CrossRef]

© 2018 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).