Geotevtiles and Geomembranes 15 (1997) 341 365

© 1998 Elsevier Science Limited

Printed in Great Britain. All rights reserved
0266-1144/97 $17.00
ELSEVIER PII: S0266-1144(97)100014-0

Instrumentation for Monitoring Field Performance of the

Cincinnati GCL Test Plots

G e o r g e R. K o e r n e r a*, J o h n J. B o w d e r s b & H e a t h e r B. S c r a n t o n '

"Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Drexel, USA

bUniversity of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA
'Cornforth Consultants, Portland, OR, USA

ABSTRACT

Fourteen full-scale cover systems were constructed at a site in Cincinnati,

Ohio, to understand better the strength capability of various GCLs as a
component in cover systems. Four different geosynthetic clay liner (GCL)
products were installed in full-scale cover systems on two different slopes. The
main objective o f the project was to monitor the internal shear strength of the
GCLs over time. This required in-situ yet economic instrumentation. Instru-
ments were designed, calibrated and installed in the test plots in order to
monitor the moisture content o f the subsoil and moisture content within the
bentonite component o f the GCL. In addition, total and differential deJorma-
tions o f the GCLs were monitored. The focus of this paper is to report the
details o f instrumenting the GCLs rather than to report on speci~'c GCL
performance. © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd.

I N T R O D U C T I O N A N D SCOPE

A geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) is an alternative to a compacted clay liner

(CCL). A G C L is a thin layer (typically 6 - 1 0 m m ) of bentonite encased by
two geotextiles or adhered to a geomembrane. Some GCLs are reinforced
either by needle-punching or stitch-bonding. Whereas GCLs are indeed
attractive for a number of reasons, their internal shear strength is a concern
(Daniel et al., 1993). This concern over shear strength arises because of the
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.

341
342 G . R . Koerner et al.

properties of hydrated bentonite. Considerable data are available attesting to

the low hydrated shear strength, e.g. as low as 4 ° (Mesri & Olson, 1970).
When GCLs are placed on slopes, this concern over low shear strength is
quite justified.
A field project was constructed at a site in Cincinnati, Ohio to understand
better the internal shearing capacity of GCLs as a component in sloping
cover systems. F o u r different G C L products were installed in landfill cover
systems on two slopes. Instrumentation was installed to monitor the moist-
ure conditions in the soil beneath the GCLs, of the bentonite within the
GCLs, and to monitor the total and differential deformation within the
GCLs. The slopes were at 3(H) to I(V), i.e. 18 ° with the horizontal, and 2(H)
to I(V), i.e. 26 ° with the horizontal. A comprehensive overview of the project
is available in the thesis of Scranton (1996), or in a paper by Koerner et al.
(1997), which appears in this issue. The scope of this paper, however, is
limited to the details and nuances associated with the instrumentation of this
project.

INSTRUMENTATION

Moisture sensors (two different types) and extensometers were installed

in the test plots. The objectives o f the instrumentation were to monitor
the hydration of the bentonite in the GCLs and to monitor the defor-
mations (both total and differential) o f the GCLs. Moisture sensors were
installed in the subgrade to measure the moisture fluctuations and in the
bentonite to verify hydration, or in the case o f plots A, F, and P, to
verify that the bentonite remained dry. Extensometers (deformation
sensors) were installed on the upper and lower surfaces o f the G C L s to
monitor the long-term total and differential deformation o f the G C L s in
each plot. The instrumentation was selected based on simplicity and
economics. There were multiple installations of each instrument type at
each test plot.

Moisture sensors

Moisture sensors were installed in each test plot in order to assess the general
moisture condition of the soil subgrade and hydration of the bentonite
within the GCLs. Two types o f sensors were used in the project--a gypsum
block sensor (used in the soil subgrade) and a fiberglass mesh sensor (used
within the GCL). Figure 1 shows a diagram of each type o f moisture sensor.
Both sensors operate on a resistance basis. The fiberglass sensors contain
two wire screens embedded in porous fiberglass mesh. The resistance to flow
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 343

~ypsum Block Fiberg ass Moisture Sensor

•I25 mm
0
mm
40 m

25 mm

Fig. 1. (a) Gypsum block and (b) fiberglass moisture sensors.

of electric current between the two screens is dependent on the moisture

present. The resistance is measured, and moisture content is determined by
comparison with a calibration chart. The calibration is a function of soil type
and the concentration o f constituents in the soil water. The gypsum block
sensors operate similarly to the fiberglass sensors with the exception that
they have two concentric spirals of wire between which resistance is deter-
mined. The resistance is measured using a digital meter manufactured speci-
fically to operate with these sensors.
The sensors were placed on the centerline o f one o f the two G C L panels
at three locations--top, middle, and b o t t o m - - o f each plot as shown in
Fig. 2. The sensors were installed 5.2m, 10.7 m, and 16.8 m from the crest
on the 2:1 slopes and 6.1 m, 15-2m, and 24.4m from the crest on the 3:1
slopes. At each location, two, and in some cases three, moisture sensors

CREST
in •1

211 n2

• Cluster o!
• MIDDLE Moisture Sensors
3• •3 • Extensometers

4• •4

5• TOE n5

Left GCL Panel Right GCL Panel

Fig. 2. Location of instrumentation in the test plots.

344 G . R . Koerner et al.

were installed. They were placed in the subsoil, at the subsoil-GCL inter-
face, and in a few instances, above the GCL. A cross-section of the
moisture sensor installation in the test plots (except for plots A, F, N, and
P) is shown in Fig. 3. Figure 4 shows how the moisture sensors were
installed in plots A, F, and N.
The gypsum blocks and digital meter (5910-A) were obtained from Soil
Moisture Equipment Corporation of Santa Barbara, California. The fiber-
glass sensors were obtained from Techsas, Inc. of Houston, Texas. The cost
data are shown in Table 1.

•...5:.`....::.i.:.:••..:.••:...:...:.:.:.•.:...:.:.:•:.:.:•:...::•:.:.:.:.:.•.:...:;..:...:.:.:•:.5•.:...

`~Z.:~i!.:~Z!..:Zi.Z:!.:~:i.`~!..:Z!.:~:i.~:!.~Z!.:~:i.ZZ!.~:!.i.:~Z.X!i.~§~ii:~i-~zi-:
:!.~.~r

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!!!!!!!!!!!iiiill
GM---------I1~~
QcL ~ ~///////////////////////////////////////////////////A
lass

Gypsu
Block

Fig, 3. Moisture sensors in the test plots.

iiBimlm. |ill .mmlmllnnllmmlmmmlmlmlmBwmlllammmlmll I

GT/GN/GT----I~
iiii ii ii i i i I i i ii impl iI1¢ i i i i i i i I i i i i i i i i I I i i ii i i I I i I I I

GM-~I~
"~'- ~ql--Flberglass

GCL ~ ~

I:IIOCK

Fig. 4. Moisture sensors in test plots A, F, and N.

 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 345

TABLE 1
Equipment List for the Moisture Sensors

Equipment Supplier Location Cost in 1994

Gypsum block Soil Moisture P.O. Box 30025 Santa $13 each
Equipment Corp. Barbara, CA 93105
805/964-3525
Fiberglass moisture Techsas, Inc. 11601 Katy Freeway, $32 each with 2-m
sensors Suite 227, Houston, leads
TX 77079, 800/299-
5555
Monitoring unit Techsas, Inc. 11601 Katy Freeway, $350 each
Suite 227, Houston,
TX 77079, 800/299-
5555
Hardware Radio Shack Cincinnati, OH $7 for each sensor

Moisture sensor calibration

The resistance of the fiberglass or gypsum block sensors is measured, and

moisture contents are determined by comparison with a calibration chart.
The soils in contact with the moisture sensors are the subsoil at the site and
the bentonite in the GCLs. There are generally four different subsoil types at
the site: soil types A, B, C, and D. The locations of the different subsoils on
the 2:1 slope are shown in Fig. 5. The 3:1 slope consisted entirely of soil type
D.
Calibration tests were performed for the gypsum block and fiberglass
moisture sensors with soils A, B, C, and D. The calibration procedure
involved filling a 1000-ml beaker with soil, and placing a circular piece of
Gundseal above the soil with the geomembrane portion of the GCL in
contact with the soil. A small layer of sand was placed over the GCL, and a

Soil A
Soil B

jAj
Soil C
,/
Crest

Toe
cLo L;H
PLO~ F G H I J K L M N
Fig. 5. Subsoil on the 2:1 slope.
346 G.R. Koerner et al.

pressure o f 17 kPa was applied to the specimen. A gypsum block was inserted
within the subsoil, and a fiberglass moisture sensor was placed at the inter-
face o f the G C L and the subsoil. The subsoil was incrementally wetted, and
after the moisture gauge reading equilibrated, the resistance reading and
moisture content of the soil were recorded.
The calibration curve for the gypsum block in the site subsoils is shown in
Fig. 6, and the calibration curve for the fiberglass moisture gauge with the
site subsoils is shown in Fig. 7.
The procedure for calibration o f the fiberglass moisture sensor with
bentonite involved placing a fiberglass sensor between two prewetted pieces
of Gundseal so that the sensor was surrounded by bentonite. Moist sand was
placed below and above the membranes o f the GCLs, and a pressure of
17 kPa was applied to the specimen. After the moisture gauge reading equi-
librated, the resistance reading and the moisture content of the bentonite
were recorded.
The calibration curve for the fiberglass moisture sensor with bentonite is
shown in Fig. 8. The scatter is due to the use of 15 different sensors in the
development of the calibration curve. Not only did each type of moisture
sensor need to be calibrated to the different types of soil, but each individual
moisture sensor should have its own individual calibration curve since the
moisture sensors have slight mechanical differences.
Because o f the scatter in Fig. 8, this calibration curve can best be used to
determine whether the bentonite is relatively dry or relatively hydrated and
the trending o f the bentonite to become wetter or drier. The calibration curve

100
mmm~o Amm oA • •
90 • •
80 A 0
c
:5 70
FI- 60

50 A o
O9
(9
40

30 A
0 • 0
20

10
A
m0 •
0 -I~ IIPA, ,' ,' I

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Content (%)

Fig. 6. C a l i b r a t i o n curve for gypsum block a n d subsoil.

 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 347

100
90 A

80 Ai I
.E
m
"O
70 0
rr 6O

c 50 0
Z~
co
~ 40

m 30
0
~ 2O
A 0
10 /~ A A
El
A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Water Content (%)

Fig. 7. Calibration of fiberglass moisture sensors with subsoil.

120

.~ 1O0
{. 2, e0 C I
regression I
;

5,
60 • •

40 • •
o

2O

0 -'I" ., mn ,m , , ,
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Water Content (%)

Fig. 8. Calibration curve o f fiberglass moisture sensor with bentonite.

cannot be used to establish a specific water content of the bentonite. For

example, a moisture gauge reading of 20 indicates that the water content of
the bentonite could range between 40% and 150%, and a gauge reading of
80 indicates that the water content of the bentonite could range between
190% and 290%. This is, however, not too serious a deterrent since Daniel e t
al. (1993) noted that the long-term shear strength of the bentonite was
insensitive to water content for water contents above 50%. Thus, the essen-
tial issue is whether or not the bentonite is hydrated, not the specific value of
moisture content.
348 G, R. Koerner et al.

Extensometers

Extensometers were installed in each layout to measure total deformation of

the GCL panels and to detect any differential deformation within the inter-
nal GCL structure. Extensometers monitor the movement of a specific point.
By having mated pairs of extensometers (top and bottom of the GCL), the
differential deformation can be obtained.
There are a number of extensometers to choose from. Dunicliff & Green
(1988) suggest 12 different methods when monitoring field performance of
geotechnical projects, ranging from settlement plates to soil strain gauges.
This project made use of tensioned wire extensometers.
Each mated pair of extensometers consists of thin stainless steel wires
contained within 6.4-ram-diameter plastic tubing. The fixed ends of the wires
were each fastened to fish hooks, which were then embedded at various
locations along the GCL panel. The up-slope end of the wires was extended
to a fixed monitoring station and connected to a weight used to apply a
constant tension to the wire. Deformations at various locations along the
GCL were monitored at the crest of the slope.

Extensometer assembly

Seven-strand stainless steel wire (average diameter 0.76 mm) was used for the
extensometers. The wire was rated at 600 N breaking strength, but separate
tests resulted in an average breaking strength of 684 N. Table 2 presents a
parts list of items used in the assembly of the extensometers.
Extensometers used for this project were assembled in an open bay of
the EPA's Center Hill facility in Cincinnati, Ohio. A 38-m-long, 6-m-wide
reach of floor space was used. Extensometer preparation required
approximately 30 min per extensometer. A total of 280 extensometers were
prepared for this project. Extensometers were prepared as outlined in the
following steps:
• A 30-m-long polyethylene tubing was uncoiled so that it was straight and
anchored to a dead weight bumper.
• With the aid of a pair of sheet metal vise grips, the tubing was stretched
tight while the stainless steel cable was pushed into it. The cable had to be
pushed into the tubing smoothly so that it was not crimped or bent. The
stiffer the cable, the easier it was to force through the 30-m-long tube. An
alternative to pushing the cable through the conduit was to pull it through
with an electrician's fish tape made of spring steel. If the tolerance
between the internal diameter of the tube and the width of the steel allows,
pulling is often more reliable and faster than pushing the cable.
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 349

TABLE 2
Extensometer Parts List

No. Item Description Supplier Cost

1 Stainless steel cable 0-8 mm diameter AFE 205 Carter $8.03/30 m
1:7 strand 600 N Drive, West
test Chester, PA 19380
(610) 692-1971
2 Plastic conduit Polyethylene Cole-Parmer, 7425 $11.50/30 = 30m
tubing OD = 6.3 mm N. Oak Park
ID = 3.2 mm Avenue, Niles, IL
Wall = 1.6mm 60714-9930.(800)
323-4340
3 Hooks 2 salt water No. 2-0 O Mustard & Son $0.25/30 m
Ref. #3407 single Inc., Auburn, NY
barbed fish hooks 13021
4 Weights 4.5 N lead Penn Fishing $1.25/30 m
Tacking Co., 3028
W. Hunting Park
Ave., Philadelphia,
PA 19132, (215)
229-9415
5 Connector sleeve Size 4 Cat #B4BL Berkeley Outdoor $0-50/30m
Tech., Group, 1
Berkeley Drive,
Spirit Lake, IA
51360, (712) 336-
1520
6 Epoxy 5 minute epoxy Devcon Corp., $13.99/30 m
Danvers, MA 01923

A f t e r the cable w a s in the tubing, h a r d w a r e such as a n a n c h o r w a s h e r at

o n e end a n d a p a i r o f fish h o o k s at the o t h e r end were c o n n e c t e d to the
cable with c o n n e c t o r sleeves.
A set o f five 30-m e x t e n s o m e t e r s were p r e p a r e d in this f a s h i o n a n d then
b u n d l e d in large coils with electrical t a p e for field d e p l o y m e n t . As a safety
m e a s u r e , the fish h o o k s were t a p e d t o g e t h e r d u r i n g s h i p p i n g a n d h a n d -
ling.

Field installation of extensometers

T h e e x t e n s o m e t e r s were installed in the field as the G C L panels were

d e p l o y e d . E a c h G C L p l o t w a s t w o roll w i d t h s wide with a n o v e r l a p p e d s e a m
r u n n i n g d o w n the center o f the l a y o u t . E a c h p a n e l o f G C L h a d five extens-
o m e t e r s a t t a c h e d to the u p p e r g e o s y n t h e t i c a n d five e x t e n s o m e t e r s to the
350 G.R. Koerner et al.

Monitoring
Stations - ~ Crest of Slope
~ ~._ 0 Upper attachment
~_Overlap ~ 6m " Lower attachment

o, ,o0e
Anchor .... ,.~, .. _~"" ~ Right Panel
Trench 3 0 1~''2
m ~ ; a ne/

Attachment
Fig. 9. Schematic diagram of extensometers of a typical test plot.

lower geosynthetic of the G C L , i.e. 10 extensometers per G C L panel or 20

per test plot. The field installation of the extensometers is outlined in the
following steps. Frequent reference to Fig. 9 may help with envisioning the
installation process.

• The G C L rolls were deployed down the slope and then folded in half
along their length (downslope) direction.
• The locations o f the extensometers were marked on the lower G C L
surface with spray paint. In addition to these spots, lines at 6.0-m
intervals from the crest o f the slope were drawn across the entire width
o f the G C L . These lines on both the top and b o t t o m of the G C L were
used as reference marks during construction and perhaps will be used as
a forensic tool when the test plots are excavated. N o t e that movement
o f these lines is compared with survey marks to track movement during
construction. The contrasting paint mark also provided good photo-
graphic references.
• The bundle of five 30-m extensometers was uncoiled by rolling it down the
slope and separating the individual extensometers in the field.
• Each prepared 30-m extensometer constituted two extensometers. For
example, extensometer no. 1 and no. 5 were made from a single 30-m
extensometer. In the same manner, extensometer no. 2 and no. 4 were
made from a 30-m extensometer, and likewise two no. 3 extensometers
were made in the same fashion. In utilizing the prepared extensometers in
this fashion, two bundles of five 30-m extensometers made the 20 field
extensometers for an entire G C L layout.
• As shown in Figs 10 and 11, a pair of hooks were embedded in the
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 351

el Cable

Fig. 10. Schematic diagram of cable attachment to GCL.

Benton

Deforrr
Cat

Geotextile

Fig. 11. Cross-section of G C L cable attachment showing how internal shear deformation is
measured.

exposed geosynthetic surface of the GCL, and then the stainless steel cable
was pulled tight and tied off on a reference stake at the crest of the slope.
Quick-setting (5min) epoxy was applied to the area where the fish
hooks embedded into the geotextile of the GCL and allowed to dry for
10min.
A 0-3 m by 0.6 m rectangle of l-ram HDPE geomembrane was then placed
on the subgrade to provide a smooth slip zone for the extensometer
connection. Note that this slip sheet was only placed for the lower
extensometers.
352 G.R. Koerner et al.

• After the epoxy set, the GCL panels were unfolded and laid flat on the
slope. At the crest of the slope, each GCL panel was slit approximately
4 m long at mid-width. The slit enabled the lower five extensometers to
exit from beneath the GCL and project a straight line to the monitoring
station.
• In the same fashion as the lower extensometers, the upper extensometers
were set and then tied off at the reference stake, It should be mentioned
that the ends of the extensometer conduits near the crest of the slope were
tagged as extensometer no. 1 through no. 5 via the appropriate number of
bands around the conduit made with black electrical tape.
One band represented the no. 1 extensometer, and five bands represented the
no. 5 extensometer. In addition, the upper extensometers were marked with
orange paint to differentiate them from the lower extensometers.
A team of five technicians installed the extensometers at the site. Extens-
ometer installation appeared to be the time-limiting factor in the construc-
tion sequence of the test plots. The five technicians could install 60
extensometers on a good day. This translates into a top speed of three GCL
plots per day.

Monitoring station assembly

Monitoring stations used for this project were assembled at Drexel Univer-
sity in Philadelphia, PA and shipped to the site. As can be seen in Fig. 9,
each GCL panel had its own monitoring station. Therefore, there were two
monitoring stations per test plot. Figure 12 shows that each monitoring
station held ten extensometers. In so doing, both upper and lower extens-
ometers of a single panel could be read at any one monitoring station.
All the parts needed for the monitoring station were obtained from a
general hardware store. Table 3 presents a parts list of the items used in the
assembly of the monitoring stations. Each monitoring station required
approximately 2h to assemble. A total of 28 monitoring stations were
prepared for this project. Monitoring stations were prepared as outlined in
the following steps.
• A wood platform was constructed from a 0.6 m by i.2 m sheet of plywood
and a 50 mm by 75 mm wooden stiffener screwed around the perimeter of
the plywood.
• The platforms were primed and painted.
• Yardsticks with grommeted ends were glued and nailed to the platform in
clusters of five.
• Eyelets were screwed into place at the base of the yardsticks, and holes
were drilled through the platform at the grommet location.
 Instrumentation for monitoring.field performance o[ the Cincinnati GCL test plots 353

Upper
Extensometers
Hr°lcemWmiteht
/ n s ~ ,----Meter Sticks
Lower ~

~!~i~?~...........

ibutor

Eyelet J ~ Individual ~ ~.~

• C~duits ~ Extensometers
~;onaults ~ to GCLpanel

Fig. 12. S c h e m a t i c d i a g r a m o f e x t e n s o m e t e r m o n i t o r i n g s t a t i o n .

• A cover tarp for protection from the weather was fastened to the top of
the platform with nails.
• Front and back legs were mitered and drilled to fit the platform with
respect to the appropriate slope angle.

Monitoring station installation

The monitoring stations were installed after the test plots were fully
constructed. During panel layout, extensometers were temporarily tied off to
reference stakes in order to facilitate construction. The GCL slopes were
built from the top down. Therefore, construction personnel needed room to
manoeuvre at the crest of the slope. Installation of the monitoring stations
prematurely would have delayed construction and may have resulted in
monitoring station damage. Installation of the monitoring station is outlined
in the following steps.

• The mitered legs of the monitoring station were attached in the field with
lag bolts.
• The location of the monitoring station was spotted so that it would
straddle the 10 extensometers leading to the reference stake with the front
legs of the monitoring station located at the center of the anchor trench.
• With a gas-powered, two-man auger equipped with a 100-ram diameter
auger bit, holes were drilled for the four legs on the monitoring station.
The holes were each 0.6m deep.
354 G.R. Koerner et al.

TABLE 3
Monitoring Station Parts List

No. Item Description Supplier Cost

I Yard stick 10 at $0.29 Home Depot, $2-90/monitoring
Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
2 Eyelets 10 at $0.26 Home Depot, $2-60/monitoring
Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
3 Grommets l0 at $0-20 Home Depot, $2-00/monitoring
Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
4 Plywood 0.6 m by 1.2 m Home Depot, $7.25/monitoring
Delaware Ave.. station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
5 Lumber 11 m of 50 mm by Home Depot, $9-94/monitoring
75 mm Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
6 Paint and primer 0.91 Home Depot, $4-75/monitoring
Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
7 Sacrete 178 N bag ready Home Depot, $11.96/monitoring
mix concrete Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
8 Cover Tarp Home Depot, $4.35/monitoring
Delaware Ave., station
Philadelphia, PA
19104
9 Hardware Nuts, bolts, Home Depot, $8.50/monitoring
washers, nails and Delaware Ave., station
screws Philadelphia, PA
19104
10 Temporary Lumber and screws Home Depot, $2.25/monitoring
reference stake Delaware Ave., statmon
Philadelphia, PA
19104
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 355

• Upon cleaning out the augured holes with a hand auger, the legs were
dropped into position. The monitoring station was leveled and aligned.
• The augured holes encompassing the legs of the monitoring station were
then backfilled with 178 N of dry concrete mix. Residual subgrade moist-
ure adequately hydrated the concrete in a 24-h period.
• After the monitoring station was set, the extensometers were cut free of
the reference stake. The cables of the extensometers were then threaded
through the eyelets of the monitoring station, fitted with an indicator
sleeve, dropped through the grommet at the end of the yard stick and then
attached to a lead weight.
• The indicator sleeve was then crimped at a prescribed distance down the
yardstick. This distance determined the gross movement in the extens-
ometer relative to the reference stake used for construction purposes.
• After all ten extensometer cables were threaded through the correct loca-
tions in the monitoring station, the protective cover was folded over the
monitoring station. Whenever the extensometer readings were taken, the
eight screws holding down the cover were removed so that the cover could
be temporarily folded back.
• Finally, the tarp cover of each monitoring station was labeled with its
appropriate identification letters. For example, 'G-L' would identify test
plot 'G', the left hand panel.

E x t e n s o m e t e r calibration and sources o f error

A prototype extensometer and monitoring station were calibrated in the

laboratory. The extensometer was 30m long and was fastened to a full-
scale monitoring station. At the fish hook end of the extensometer, a
technician advanced the hook discrete lengths from 10 to 300ram, while
another technician recorded extensometer readings at the monitoring
station. Figure 13 shows the calibration curves for three trial runs. There
was an excellent correlation between the actual movements and extens-
ometer readings.
In addition to calibrating the extensometers, an attempt was made to
determine the error that may be inherent to the equipment on site. The first
theoretical source of error was wire stretch. Via Hooke's law and using a
modulus of 1.3 E 5MPa obtained by tensile testing (see Fig. 14), it was
determined that a stretch deformation of 23 mm would be realized for 30 m
of cable. This is assuming that a constant load of 4-4N was placed on the
wire. Note that this load is approximately 0.5% of the average breaking load
of the wire. This light load will not place the wire in creep. Therefore, the
stretch will remain constant over the life of the project. Thus, we expect less
than I mm of movement due to stretch.
356 G . R . Koerner et al.

E
E
300

y = - 0.16387 + 0.99425x
/ R^2 = 0.99
200

~a
L

c}- i 1 st Trial
100- i 2 n d Trial
E 3 r d Trial

~a
100 200 300 400
Actual movement (ram)
Fig. 13. E x t e n s o m e t e r c a l i b r a t i o n curve.

800 i!
I

Z
600

/
f i
I
400 I
f
.a

200
/ i
I

J .

0 3 4
Displacement (mm)
Fig. 14. E x t e n s o m e t e r load versus d i s p l a c e m e n t curve.

The second source o f possible error could be from temperature changes.

Schaffer et al. (1995) gives the coefficient of thermal expansion of stainless
steel as 1-7 E - 5 1/°C. Knowing that the typical seasonal temperature varia-
tion for geosynthetics used in a landfill cover is approximately +13°C
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 357

(Koerner et al., 1996), we calculated that a deformation of 9 mm over a 30-m

length could be anticipated on site.
It should be mentioned that both of these sources of error were calculated for
a 30-m section of stainless steel wire. As the extensometer length shortens, the
possible error decreases proportionately. Hence, by combining the two sources
of error from creep and temperature fluctuations, 1 mm and 9 mm, a total error
of 10mm is realized for a 30-m extensometer. However, with good quality
assurance and responsible construction personnel, this conservative estimate of
the total error of the extensometers may be minimized.

INSTRUMENT PERFORMANCE

Both types of moisture sensors and extensometers have performed success-

fully during the first 2 years of monitoring the test plots. Several covers have
shown deformation and bentonite hydration. Indeed, three cover systems
underwent massive movements [see Koerner et al. (1997) for further infor-
mation]. The intent herein is to report and assess the performance of the
instrumentation.

Moisture sensors

No major obstacles were encountered during the installation of the moisture

sensors. The principal challenge of the sensors was to accurately calibrate
soil moisture content with the resistivity reading of the gauge. As noted
earlier, manufacturing tolerance for the gauges is not particularly tight. Each
gauge produces a slightly different calibration curve. Thus, for the best
accuracy in determining moisture contents, each gauge must have its own
calibration curve. Time did not permit this luxury on this project so a sample
of similar gauges was calibrated after the field installation (Figs 8 and 9).
Because of the scatter in the data for the calibration curves, the moisture
sensors can only be used to assess whether the bentonite is relatively dry and
the trend towards wetting or drying. The digital meter used to read the
resistance of the gauge displays dimensionless units from 0 to 100. Zero
indicates no moisture present (high resistance), and 100 indicates saturation.
In operation, a soil may be saturated at meter readings less than 100.
A typical response for the moisture sensors is shown in Fig. 15. The
squares are the sensors buried in the subsoil. The triangles are the sensors at
the subsoil GCL interface, and the open circles are the sensors sandwiched
between the GCL and the overlying geomembrane. Note that, in this case,
Plot F, the GCL was Gundseal, and the bentonite was facing up. Thus, the
sensors were sandwiched between two geomembranes.
358 G . R . Koerner et al.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1O0 Plot Location: Crest

90 i

"-i 20304050607080 i!

10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500
Time (days)

•- 9O I
80
0¢9"~0 -'9-'0-'-':~--- °

/
Plot Lo~ ion: Middle
60
50
~ 4O
~ ao
'°I
1d __ _
O0 200 300 400 500
Time(days)
100 .~L~,,--°-.. ,,~ '. =_ ,,

i
•-

p
80
70
60
5O
40
~ ao
~ 20
10

100 200 300 400 500

Time(days)
" Subsoil - GYPSUM • GCL/Subsoil - F I B E R G L A S S ~ w / i n GCL - FIBERGLASS

Fig. 15. M o i s t u r e r e a d i n g s o v e r time for s e n s o r s located in Plot F ( G u n d s e a l , Bentonite side

up, 2:1 slope).
 Instrumentation./'or monitoring field per/'ormance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 359

The data in Fig. 15 show the subsoil to be near saturation at the toe, mid-
height and crest of the slope. The GCL/subsoil interface (here, the lower side
of the G C L is a geomembrane) is wet but not likely saturated (at least the
fiberglass sensor is not saturated). The most interesting point is that the
fiberglass sensor that was against the bentonite side of the GCL, and over-
lain by a geomembrane, indicated near saturated conditions for the toe and
mid-slope locations. Since the sensors and bentonite were 'sealed' between
two geomembranes and the general opinion was that the bentonite should
not have access to sufficient water to hydrate, some question as to the relia-
bility of the sensors was raised.
The GCL was destructively sampled on 8 March 1995 (about 3months
after installation). Moisture contents of the bentonite were measured grav-
imetrically (ASTM D2216) and are shown (in Fig. 16) as per plot location.
The initial (as-installed) moisture content of the bentonite was 15-25%. The
high moisture contents at the toe and mid-slope confirmed the moisture
sensor readings. Fig. 17 illustrates the displacement of the left and right
panels of plot F.
The moisture sensor performance has been satisfactory. The sensors have
been reliable with few failures. Their limitation is that exact moisture content
is not predictable; however, they do enable one to see trends in moisture
change and to suggest when the bentonite is nearing hydration. This was

Top of Slope

27 7 33
Water ~" I ~o7
Content /
(%)
.__..._Deformation
42nn • u Sensor
34 2 8 Cables

m34
27
86

Initial Water 50i 31.: • 29 188•

Content of I 65 - 125
I
,
Bentonite : 25% i
i

7ol ', 1.Q4 # 7

,

Toe of Slope

Fig. 16. Moisture content of the bentonite in GCL of Plot F sampled on 8 March 1995,
3 months after installation.
360 G . R . Koerner et al.

Gauge 5 (Above GCL)

o.. 2oo 3oo 4oo

50

\.
E 350

_,,., 450 1
.~_ 550 ,
650
750 ]
Downslope
I~ .Left Panel~ Right Paneli

Fig. 17. Typical displacement versus time for plot F (Gundseal, bentonite side up, 2:1 slope).
Gauge 5 is the extensometer nearest the toe of the slope.

attainable at a minor expense of approximately $4000 for 120 sensors and

one readout device. An additional $5000 was required for field assembly and
installation. All 120 sensors were installed during the construction phase of
the project by two highly skilled individuals.

Extensometers

The extensometers have provided exciting information. An example is shown

in Fig. 19. This figure shows the total downslope displacement measured by
the extensometers of the no. 5 gauges at the toe of the slope for Plot 'F'. This
total displacement versus time plot shows that the right panel is moving
more than the left panel over a 470-day period. The results correlate well
with field observations, and this makes predicting the overall behavior of the
plot rather straightforward.
In addition to monitoring total displacement, differential deformations
were also monitored with the extensometers. Differential deformation is
defined as the relative movement of a pair of upper versus lower extens-
ometers. Differential deformation is determined as the movement of the
extensometer mounted on the top surface of the GCL minus the displace-
ment of the extensometer mounted on the bottom surface of the GCL.
Differential deformation is indicative of the measured internal shear defor-
mation of a GCL.
Figure 18 shows the results of the left (top figure) and right (bottom
 Instrumentation for monitoring field performance o( the Cincinnati GCL test plots 361

Differential Deformation vs. Time Left Panel

-75
• N- 1
•~ - N~ 2
E E
E E
,,,_] ,.,J

~g
C i T --~--- No. 5

350
!! o 2 3® I

25
T i m e {days}

Differential Deformation vs. T i m e - Right Panel

-75
• No. I
---Q--- No. 2
v ~ -50
,- No. 3
---<,--- No. 4
CUT
~ No. 5

~ 0
k/ ~ 100 150 200 250 300 350

25
T i m e (days)

Fig. 18. Differential displacement versus time for plot A ( G u n d s e a l , 3:1 slope) left and right
panels.

figure) panels of Plot 'A'. It is interesting to note that the left panel of plot
'A' shows a small positive response. This positive differential deformation is
indicative of the anticipated response of the top carrier layer of the GCL
moving downslope more than the bottom carrier layer of the GCL. The
results of the right panel of plot 'A' show a small negative response. This
surprising response is indicative of the bottom carrier layer of the GCL
moving downslope more than the top carrier layer of the GCL. This
362 G . R . Koerner et al.

Differential Deformation vs. Time - Left Panel

-125 Y Time (days)

/ 50 IO0 150 200 250 300 350

~- .1. "-S- . . . . .,--~ . ------*-.L ~ ..

o ~
~7~ 125 CUT ---m-- No., k/J- -"--..~
~ ~ No. 2
~ 250 ---~.--- N(,. 3

~ 375 -~- No. 5

500

Differential Deformation vs. Time - Right Panel

-125 Time (days)

im,/..~. 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

0

~ 125

~ 250

~ 375
--*- - No. 3 CUT ~ . "v
---o-- No. 4
500
A No. 5

Fig. 19. Differential displacement versus time for plot F (Gundseal, Bentonite side up, 2:1
slope) left and right panels.

response was believed to be a result of non-uniform loading of the GCL, or

more likely, an indication of the accuracy of the extensometers. Note that
Fig. 19 probably suggests that the accuracy of an extensometer is approxi-
mately ± 1 0 m m . This is the positive-negative scatter of this representative
data set. Note that this field observed indication of accuracy correlates well
with the calculated magnitude of accuracy discussed previously.
 Instrumentation for monitoring.field performance of the Cincinnati GCL test plots 363

In contrast to the small differential deformations shown in Figs 18 and 19,

shows the results of the extensometer reading at plot 'F'. It appears that the
right panel of Plot 'F' has undergone nearly 500 mm of differential defor-
mation at the toe of the slope. The left panel of plot 'F' has seen 180 mm of
differential deformation after 330 days. Note that the left panel did not move
until 270 days, whereas the right panel showed signs of movement shortly
after construction was completed. It is interesting to note that the extens-
ometer readings corroborate field observations. Surface observations of the
cover soil showed large right panel deformations as a precursor to left panel
deformations.
Differential deformations from the 280 extensometers are summarized in
Table 4. Note that the differential deformation of only gauge 5 has been
presented in Table 4 as it is indicative of the largest deformations experi-
enced on the test plots. It is easily seen from Table 4 that the reinforced
GCLs (stitch bonded or needle punched) are deforming less than the non-
reinforced GCLs.
Overall, extensometer performance was excellent. The extensometers were

TABLE 4
M a x i m u m Total and Average Differential Deformation of G C L s at Gauge No. 5 at the Toe
of the Slope after 475 days

Plot GCL Product Slope ( H: V) Differential Maximum total

deformation (ram) de[brmation (ram)
A Gundseal 3:1 +2 + 30
B Bentomat 3:1 +5 + 20
C Claymax 500SP 3: I - 1 + 18
D Bentofix NS 3:1 0 + 8
E Gundseal 3:1 +7 + 14
F (old) Gundseal 2:1 + 180 + 720
G Bentomat 2:1 + 10" > 100"
H Claymax 500SP 2:1 + 10" > 100"
I Bentofix N W 2:1 -13 + 120
J Bentomat 2:1 -8 + 30
K Claymax 500SP 2:1 4- 25 + 67
L Bentofix N W 2:1 --5 + 19
M Control Section 2:1 Not applicable Observed rotations
failure at the base of
this plot
N Bentofix N W 2:1 0 + 19
F(new) Gundseal 2:1 Not instrumented Not applicable

"An abrupt and complete slide occurred at the g e o m e m b r a n e - G C L interface of the test plots
marked. Consult Koerner et al. (1997) for specifics. The test plots were rendered unusable for
determining mid-plane shear strength after the slides occurred. Therefore, the deformation
data of these plots are limited.
364 G . R . Koerner et al.

reliable and economical. The generated data can be read directly at the
monitoring station and do not require normalization or correction. The
limitations of the extensometer are an accuracy of • 10 ram. Considering the
extent of the instrumentation and the field service conditions, these extens-
ometers are well suited for the task at hand.
The extensometers were relatively inexpensive; the total cost for all extens-
ometers including monitoring stations was $6555. An additional $25000 was
required for field assembly and installation. All 280 extensometers were instal-
led within 2 weeks by six highly skilled and motivated field technicians.

SUMMARY

A total of 120 moisture sensors (60 gypsum block type and 60 fiberglass
wafer type) and 280 extensometers were installed to monitor the field
performance of geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) used at 14 full-scale landfill
test plots. The objective of placing the moisture sensors was to monitor the
moisture contents of the bentonite in the GCLs and that of the subsoils. The
objective of installing the extensometers was to measure the total deforma-
tion of the GCLs with respect to the slope and the differential deformation
of the G C L with respect to itself.
The instrumentation has performed well at this site for 2 years. Both types
of moisture sensors are less sensitive than originally envisioned ( i 5 0 %
moisture content); however, the moisture sensors are being used to track
moisture trends (i.e. onset of wetting and full saturation) rather than precise
moisture contents. Extensometer sensitivity is approximately + 1 0 m m . This
sensitivity implies that the extensometers are better suited for measuring
total deformation than for differential deformation; however, they are more
than adequate for the task of predicting movement trends.
The primary lessons learned at this site with regard to instrumentation are
that redundancy is very important but must be balanced with cost consid-
erations. Data collection from such a large and heavily instrumented site
involves considerable time and accurate accounting. When dealing with a
large test simulation like that discussed in this paper, it can be beneficial to
forgo some instrument sensitivity in exchange for more easily obtained,
comparable data, using robust monitoring equipment.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The authors wish to thank the US EPA for primary sponsorship of this
project via cooperative agreement CR-821448. The authors also wish to
 Instrumentation for monitoringfield performance o/ the Cincinnati GCL test plots 365

thank Robert E. Landreth and David A. Carson for serving as project offi-
cers, and Majdi A. O t h m a n for his help during field installation.

REFERENCES

Daniel, D. E., Shan, H. Y. & Anderson, J. D. (1993). Effects of partial wetting on

the performance of the bentonite component of geosynthetic clay liner. In Proc.
Geosynthetics '93, Vol. 3, pp. 1483-1496.
Dunicliff, J. & Green, G. E, (1988). Geotechnical Instrumentation ['or Monitoring
Field Performance. Wiley, New York.
Koerner, G. R., Yazdani, R. & Mackey, R. E. (1996). Long-term temperature
monitoring of landfill geomembranes. In Proceedings of 1st Annual SWANA
Landfill Symposium, Wilmington, DE, pp. 123-136.
Koerner, R. M., Carson, D. A., Daniel, D. E. & Bonaparte, R. (1997). Current
Status of the Cincinnati GCL Test Plots. In Proceedings q[" GRI-IO, Field
Performance of" Geosynthetics and Geosynthetic Related Systems, Philadelphia~
PA, this issue.
Mesri, G. & Olson, R. E. (1970). Shear strength of montmorillonite. Geotechnique,
20(3), 261-270.
Schaffer, J. P., Saxena, A., Antolovich, S. P,, Sanders, T. H. & Warner, S. B. (1995).
The Science and Design of Engineering Materials. Irwin, Chicago, IL.
Scranton, H. B. (1996) Field performance of sloping test plots. MS thesis, The
University of Texas, Austin, TX.