Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Geotextiles and Geomembranes

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

Technical note

Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-

geosynthetic interface in direct shear test
P. Punetha a, P. Mohanty b, M. Samanta b, *
a
Academy of Scientic and Innovative Research, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, 247667, Uttarakhand, India
b
Geotechnical Engineering Group, CSIR-Central Building Research Institute, Roorkee, 247667, Uttarakhand, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Interface shear strength between soil and geosynthetics mainly depends on the mechanical and physical
Received 14 August 2016 properties of soil, geosynthetics and the normal stress acting at the interface. This paper presents results
Received in revised form of an extensive experimental investigation carried out on sand-geosynthetic interface using modied
17 January 2017
large direct shear box. The study focusses on the shearing mechanism at the sand-geosynthetic interface
Accepted 10 February 2017
Available online xxx
and the effect of different parameters on the shearing mechanism. Smooth HDPE geomembrane,
nonwoven needle punched geotextile and two types of sand having different mean particle size, have
been used in the present study. Microstructural investigation of deformed specimen through Field
Keywords:
Geosynthetics
Emission Scanning Electron Microscope (FESEM) reveals the shearing mechanism which includes
Direct shear test interlocking and ber stretching for sand-geotextile while sliding, indentation and plowing for sand-
Interface shear strength geomembrane interface. The shearing mechanism for sand-geomembrane interface highly depends on
Image analysis the normal stress and degree of saturation of sand. The critical normal stress that demarcates the sliding
FESEM and plowing mechanism for sand-geomembrane interface is different for dry and wet sand. The amount
of scouring (or plowing) of the geomembrane surface reduces with increase in the mean particle size of
sand. FESEM images revealed that the sand particles get adhered to the geotextile bers for tests
involving wet sands. The present microstructural study aided in understanding the shearing mechanism
at sand-geosynthetic interface to a large extent.
2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction hazardous landll (Mitchell et al., 1990; Koutsourais et al., 1991;

Geosynthetics are polymeric materials, used for several appli-
cations including ltration, drainage, protection, separation, slope-
stabilization, soil-reinforcement etc. (Giroud, 1984). All the prop-
erties of geosynthetics, except the interface shear strength (which
depend upon the properties of the material in contact with the
geosynthetic), can be controlled during the manufacturing process.
Till now, there is no means to visualize (observe) the interaction
mechanism at the interface during the shear test.
The interface study becomes more important as it has been
found that the interface shear strength between soil and geotextile
or geomembrane is less than the shear strength of soil alone (Gao
et al., 2010; Koerner, 2012). The need to study the interface
behavior got reinforced after the failure of Kettleman Hills Class 1
* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: punetha.piyush@yahoo.in (P. Punetha), pyushmohanty@
gmail.com (P. Mohanty), manojit_samanta@rediffmail.com (M. Samanta).
Bergado et al., 2006). Large scale direct shear tests, inclined plane
and ring shear tests are most commonly used to determine the
interface properties. Several studies on interface friction between
soilegeosynthetics have been carried out under different condi-
tions (Martin et al., 1984; Saxena and Wong, 1984; Williams and
Houlihan, 1987; Negussey et al., 1989; Garg and Saran, 1990;
Athanasopoulos, 1993; Giroud et al., 1993; Orman, 1994; Alfaro
et al., 1995; Blmel and Brummermann, 1996; Gilbert and Byrne,
1996; Bouazza, 1998; Tan et al., 1998; Frost et al., 1999; Ling et al.,
2001; Lopes et al., 2001, 2014; Liu et al., 2009; Zhang and Zhang,
2009; Anubhav and Basudhar, 2010, 2013; Fuggle and Frost, 2010;
Kwak et al., 2013; Vieira et al., 2013, 2015; Fox et al., 2014; Moraci
et al., 2014; Sayeed et al., 2014; Choudhary and Krishna, 2016).
Physical properties of soil such as angularity, particle size,
relative density and degree of saturation affect the interface shear
strength to a large degree (Izgin and Wasti, 1998; Frost et al., 2002;
Fleming et al., 2006; Khoury et al., 2010, 2011; Esmaili et al., 2014;
Ferreira et al., 2015; Hatami and Esmaili, 2015; Vangla and Latha,
2015, 2016a). The testing condition also plays an important role

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
0266-1144/ 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
2 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14
in the interface behavior (Hsieh and Hsieh, 2003). A large scattering
in various test data is usually observed due to differences in the
device and testing conditions (Blmel et al., 2000). Despite several
attempts to investigate the effect of different testing conditions and
physical properties of soil on the interface behavior, a very few of
them investigated the effect of different parameters on the shearing
mechanism at the interface.
It is very crucial to understand the failure mechanism at the soil-
geosynthetic interface. Though, it is difcult to visualize (observe)
the mechanism during the shearing, the deformed specimens after
the test can be used for the micro level investigations. These micro
level investigations could possibly aid in enhancing the knowledge
regarding the interface behavior of soil and geosynthetic. Very few
researchers have tried to study the interface behavior at the micro
level (Vaid and Rinne, 1995; Dove and Frost, 1999; Zettler et al.,
2000; Frost and Lee, 2001; DeJong and Westgate, 2005; Dove
et al., 2006; Vangla and Latha, 2016b). O'Rourke et al. (1990)
observed the polymeric sheets with different surface hardness
using SEM before and after the direct shear tests to understand the
shearing mechanism of sand-polymer interface. They reported the
skidding and rolling of sand particles over the polymer surface as
the main mechanism for polymeric sheets with high and low sur-
face hardness respectively. Stark et al. (1996) observed signicant
wearing, tearing and pulling of nonwoven geotextile bers after
interface tests with textured geomembrane. Lee and Manjunath
(2000) observed the alignment of bers in the direction of shear
in case of nonwoven geotextiles while physical damage was
observed in woven geotextiles after direct shear tests with sand.
Afzali-Nejad et al. (2017) observed wearing and tearing in woven
geotextile bers after the direct shear tests.
Thus, a large number of experimental studies have been carried
out to investigate the interface behavior of soil-geosynthetics at
different conditions over the years. But limited studies have been
carried out to understand the deformation mechanism of geo-
synthetic interfaces through microstructural investigations. In the
present study, about 120 large-scale interface direct shear tests
have been performed using sand and two types of geosynthetics
(HDPE geomembrane and nonwoven geotextile). The effects of
different physical properties of sand, including relative density,
degree of saturation, mean particle size (D50) and testing conditions
such as shearing rate have been investigated. After each test, the
deformed microstructures of geomembrane and geotextile speci-
mens were studied using Field Emission Scanning Electron Micro-
scope (FESEM) to understand the failure mechanism at the
interface. An attempt has been made to correlate the results ob-
tained from the interface direct shear tests and the observations
made in the microstructural study. The aim of the present study is
to understand the shearing mechanism at the interface and the
effect of different parameters on the shearing mechanism through
microstructural study of deformed geosynthetic specimens using
FESEM.
2. Materials used
2.1. Sand
2.1.1. Classication and properties
Two different types of river sands (Solani River sand (S1) and
Yamuna River sand (S2)) were used to conduct the direct shear
tests. Sands of different grain size distribution were used to study
the effect of mean particle size (D50) on interface behavior of geo-
synthetics. The properties of the sands are given in Table 1. The
grain size distribution curves of the two sands are presented in
Fig. 1(a). Both the sands are classied as poorly graded sands (SP) as
per IS Classication System (IS 1498).
Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
2.1.2. Morphology of sand
The particle morphological analysis was conducted to deter-
mine the angularity and circularity using image analyzer. First, the
sand was sieved and the percentage of sand retained on each sieve
was calculated. About 50 particles of sand retained on each sieve
were taken and angularity along with circularity of each particle
was determined (Vangla and Latha, 2016a). Average and standard
deviation of angularity and circularity of all the particles was then
calculated. The morphological properties of the sands are given in
Table 2. The images were taken with the help of an image analyzer
with a scale of 0.65 mm/pixel in X-direction and 0.7 mm/pixel in Y-
direction. The images were then analyzed using ImageJ free soft-
ware. Angularity and circularity of sand particles were calculated
using the following relationship (Vangla and Latha, 2015):
 2
Pc
Angularity (1)
Pe
Where Pc convex hull perimeter of particle.
Pe perimeter of equivalent ellipse having same area and aspect
ratio of particle.
 
4pA 0:5
Circularity or Sphericity (2)
P2
Where A area of prole of particle projection.
P perimeter of particle.
It must be noted that the 2-D image analysis has been carried
out in the present study and therefore circularity should be the
appropriate parameter rather than sphericity. However, both are
synonymous and can be used interchangeably. Fig. 1(b) and (c)
show the image of the sand particles taken from image analyzer
and the procedure used for morphological analysis in which the
image of the particles along with the equivalent ellipse, having the
same area and aspect ratio is depicted.
2.2. Geomembrane
Smooth HDPE geomembrane (GM) (1.5 mm thick) was used in
the present study. Table 3 shows the properties of geomembrane
used in the study.
2.3. Geotextile
Nonwoven, needle punched geotextile (GT) (1.5 mm thick) was
used in the present study. Table 4 shows the properties of geotextile
used in the study.
3. Interface shear test
3.1. Testing apparatus
Large size modied direct shear box is used to study the sand-
geosynthetic interface behavior. Dimensions of the shear box are
300 mm  300 mm x 200 mm. The box is divided into two halves
with upper half xed and lower half movable. Size of the direct
shear box is greater than 15 times D85 (0.42 mm and 1.25 mm) of
sands used in the study and greater than ve times the opening size
of geosynthetics (0.085 mm for geotextile). The depth of each half is
greater than six times the maximum particle size. Thus the box
dimensions meet the minimum requirements specied in ASTM D
5321. Both the upper and lower halves of the box are of same size.
The large container surrounding the box restricted the maximum
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14
Table 1
Properties of sand.
Properties
D10 (mm)
D30 (mm)
D50 (mm)
D60 (mm)
Coefcient of uniformity (Cu)
Coefcient of curvature (Cc)
Specic gravity (G)
Maximum unit weight (Ymax) kN/m3
Minimum unit weight (Ymin) kN/m3
Maximum void ratio (emax)
Minimum void ratio (emin)
horizontal travel to 30 mm. The normal load is applied using a
loading yoke which rests on the pressure pad, placed over the
specimen. A steel ball bearing is used between the loading yoke and
pressure pad. The horizontal displacement of the box was moni-
tored using a duly calibrated dial gauge having least count of
0.01 mm while the shear force was measured using a duly cali-
brated proving ring having least count of 0.06 kN. The vertical
displacement of the specimen was measured using another dial
gauge having least count of 0.01 mm. Fig. 2 shows the schematic
diagram of large-scale direct shear testing assembly for the sand-
geotextile interface.
3.2. Test procedure
Initially, direct shear tests on sand only were carried out using
large size direct shear box for comparison purposes. In these tests,
both the halves were lled with sand at a relative density of 80%.
The sand was lled in 3 equal layers inside the box and compacted
using a tamping rod. For sand-geosynthetic interface, an aluminum
block of size 300 mm  300 mm x 100 mm was placed in the lower
half of the box to prevent the sagging of geosynthetics during the
shear test (Lee and Manjunath, 2000). The geomembranes of size
300 mm  300 mm and geotextiles of size 500 mm  300 mm were
used in the tests. The sampling of geosynthetics was done as per
ASTM D 4354. The large size of geotextile specimens was due to
clamping requirements. The geomembranes were rmly glued to
the aluminum block to prevent slippage or any relative motion with
the aluminum block during the test. For geotextiles, sand paper was
glued over the aluminum block to make it rough (Anubhav and
Basudhar, 2010). The geotextile was placed over the sand paper
and clamped at the ends to prevent the slippage. The geotextile was
not glued to the metallic block to allow the reorientation of geo-
textile bers during shear (Kim and Frost, 2011). After placement of
geosynthetics, sand was lled in 2 layers and compacted uniformly
using a tamping rod to achieve a relative density of 80%. Four tests
for each interface were conducted in the normal stress range of
50 kPae200 kPa. The minimum value of normal stress was taken as
50 kPa as the direct shear test may give unconservative or inac-
curate results for interface tests at low normal stresses (Wasti and
Ozdzgn, 2001). Direct shear tests were continued for sufciently
large horizontal displacement to produce plastic behavior in sand-
geosynthetic interface. The rate of loading (horizontal) for tests
involving dry sand was kept at 0.314 mm/min while for tests
involving wet sand was kept at 0.2 mm/min. All the tests were
carried out using the Solani river sand (S1, with D50 0.21 mm)
except the test to study the effect of mean particle size.
3.3. Microstructural investigation
The damage induced during shearing of geosynthetics by
Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
3
S1 (Solani river sand) S2 (Yamuna river sand)
0.09 0.16
0.16 0.28
0.21 0.44
0.24 0.55
2.67 3.44
1.20 0.89
2.67 2.66
16.00 17.70
14.20 16.10
0.88 0.65
0.67 0.51
granular materials can aid in understanding the governing interface
shearing mechanism (Vangla and Latha, 2016b). Mostly the stylus
prolometer and optical prole microscopy are used to study the
shear induced changes in the roughness of geosynthetics (Vaid and
Rinne, 1995; Dove and Frost, 1996; Zettler et al., 2000; DeJong and
Westgate, 2005; Dove et al., 2006; Liu and Martinez, 2014; Afzali-
Nejad et al., 2017). Though these techniques offer an advantage of
quantifying the shear induced damage in terms of change in surface
roughness, there are issues regarding vertical resolution and ac-
curacy of measurement, which depends on several factors
including number of cross sections used for observation etc.
(Vangla and Latha, 2016b). Therefore to increase the accuracy of the
shear induced damage assessment of the geosynthetic surface,
microstructural investigation using FESEM could be coupled with
these techniques. Microstructural investigation of the geosynthetic
specimens before and after the shear test is conducted in the pre-
sent study using FESEM facility available at CSIR-CBRI Roorkee.
FESEM is a highly advanced microscope which uses a focused
electron beam instead of light to capture the high-resolution im-
ages. The focused electron beam is directed towards the specimen
and the intensity of backscattered electrons from the specimen is
compared to intensity of the electrons in input beam to generate an
image of the specimen. The advantage of FESEM over Scanning
Electron Microscope (SEM) is that FESEM produces high quality,
clear images of a specimen and with a better resolution as
compared to SEM, therefore it can detect minute changes in the
microstructure of the specimen. In the present study, the speci-
mens were cut from the center of the geosynthetic sample for
microstructural investigation using FESEM (Zettler et al., 2000).
4. Results and discussion
The results of the interface direct shear tests have been dis-
cussed in this section. The interaction between sand and geo-
synthetics has been represented by the coefcient of friction (m).
The coefcient of friction for an interface at a particular normal
stress has been calculated as the ratio of shear strength to the
normal stress.
m t=N (3)
Where, t is the shear strength and N is the normal stress.
The coefcient of friction for a particular interface in the tested
range of normal stress is given by:
m tand (4)
Where m* is the coefcient of friction for the tested range of normal
stress and d is interface friction angle (Lee and Manjunath, 2000).
4 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 1. (a): Grain size distribution curve of sands; morphological analysis of (b) Yamuna river sand (S2) and (c) Solani river sand (S1).

Table 2
Morphological properties of sand.

Sand Average angularity Standard deviation Average circularity Standard deviation Classication

S1 1.20 0.081 0.71 0.092 Sub angular

S2 1.22 0.1316 0.76 0.076 Sub angular

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14 5

Table 3 stress increases, the numbers and area of sand particles in contact
Properties of HDPE geomembrane. with the geomembrane increases. It leads to a reduction in the
Property Value actual contact stress per particle, which in turn reduces the inter-
Thickness (mm) 1.5
face shear resistance. But after a limiting value of normal stress
Density (kg/m3) 940 (100 kPa in present case), the coefcient of friction (m) almost be-
Strength at yield (N/mm) 25 comes constant. As the normal stress exceeds the limiting value,
Strength at break (N/mm) 52 the number of sand particles in contact with the interface become
Elongation at yield (%) 15
constant and the actual contact stress per particle becomes
Elongation at break (%) 800
Tear resistance (N) 222 equivalent to the applied normal stress. This limiting value of
normal stress depends upon the shape of sand particles and surface
hardness of geomembrane (Frost et al., 2002). It can be observed
Table 4 that the current ndings are in good agreement with the existing
Properties of nonwoven geotextile. literature (Izgin and Wasti, 1998; Dove and Frost, 1999; Gao et al.,
2010). The results reported by Dove and Frost (1999) (smooth
Property Value
geomembrane and Ottawa sand) and Vangla and Latha (2015)
Thickness (mm) 1.5 (smooth geomembrane and ne sand) are slightly different from
Mass/unit area (g/m2) 200
Wide width tensile strength MD (kN/m) 14
the current ndings. This difference could be due to the testing
Wide width tensile strength CD (kN/m) 12 conditions and materials used in the test. For sand-geotextile (S1-
Elongation (%) 55 GT) interface, the coefcient of friction (m) decreases slightly with
Opening size (mm) 0.085 increase in normal stress. This is due to the conned dilation of
Permittivity (s1) 1.34
sand at high normal stress (100 kPa). The coefcient of friction
Permeability (m/s) 0.0036
depends on the dilation of sand (Koutsourais et al., 1991). The
dilation of sand near the interface pushes the sand particles into the
geotextile leading to a better interlocking and hence a higher shear
4.1. Effect of normal stress
strength (and coefcient of friction) (Tan et al., 1998). With increase
in normal stress, the tendency for dilation decreases, leading to a
The coefcient of friction obtained for sand only and sand-
reduction in coefcient of friction (m). The present ndings are in
geosynthetic interfaces at different normal stress are presented in
good agreement with the ndings of Lee and Manjunath (2000)
Table 5. It is evident from Table 5 that the coefcient of friction (m)
(nonwoven geotextile and sand), Anubhav and Basudhar (2010)
for sand (S1) decreases with increase in normal stress up-to a
(ne textured woven geotextile and Kalpi sand) and Vangla and
critical value beyond which it becomes almost constant. The
Latha (2016a) (plain weave woven geotextile and ne sand).
reduction in coefcient of friction (m) with the increase in normal
stress is due to the dilation of sand. The coefcient of friction of a
material increases with increase in dilation. At low normal stress 4.2. Sand-geosynthetic interface shearing mechanism
(50 kPa), the sand dilates easily, but at high normal stress
(100 kPa), conned dilation occurs, leading to a reduction in the Microstructural investigation was conducted to understand the
coefcient of friction with the increase in the normal stress deformation mechanism of geosynthetics at the interface. FESEM
(Koutsourais et al., 1991). was used to take images of deformed geosynthetic specimens after
For sand-geomembrane (S1-GM) interface, the coefcient of each test. For comparison purposes, all the images were taken at
friction (m) decreases with the increase in normal stress. As normal same magnication (2.16 k for geomembrane specimens and
213  for geotextile specimens). In few cases, the magnication for

Fig. 2. Schematic of large scale direct shear test assembly for sand-geotextile interface.

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
6 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Table 5 interface and the peak shear stress is attained at a very small hor-
Results of direct shear test on sand only and sand-geosynthetic interfaces at izontal displacement (0.8e5 mm). For 50 kPa normal stress, the
different normal stresses and 80% relative density of sand.
shear stress reaches a maximum value and becomes constant
Interface Normal stress (kPa) m m* thereafter. In the FESEM image shown in Fig. 4(a), minor scratches
S1 50 1.08 0.90 are visible at the surface of geomembrane due to sliding of sand
100 0.94 particles over the geomembrane. So at low normal stress (50 kPa),
150 0.86 sliding is the governing shearing mechanism for sand-
200 0.90
geomembrane interface. O'Rourke et al. (1990) reported similar
S1-GM 50 0.55 0.44
100 0.44 observations. At higher normal stress (100 kPa), the stress-
150 0.45 displacement curve shows a high initial slope, followed by a
200 0.43 reduction in slope up-to-the peak. A reduction in shear stress oc-
S1-GT 100 0.69 0.67
curs after the peak and nally, it becomes constant. The initial high
150 0.67
200 0.66
slope is due to the mobilization of friction between the sand and
S2 50 0.93 0.91 geomembrane. The initial high slope is followed by a reduction in
100 0.93 slope due to the mobilization of friction as well as plastic inden-
150 0.93 tation on the geomembrane surface by the sand particle. The stress
200 0.90
on individual sand grain at the interface increases with an increase
S2-GM 100 0.33 0.38
150 0.38 in normal stress and a stage is attained when this stress become
200 0.40 greater than the yield stress of the polymer (Dove and Frost, 1999).
S2-GT 50 0.67 0.69 This increase in normal stress produces an indentation on the
100 0.69 surface of the polymer. Due to the indentation, a large amount of
150 0.66
200 0.70
shear force is required to shear the geomembrane surface and
displace the sand particle.
The peak value of shear stress marks the initiation of plowing of
geomembrane surface by the sand particles. From Fig. 4(b) and (c),
90
deep scour over the surface of geomembrane is clearly visible. This
80
deep scour resembles plowing. After the plowing takes place, large
70
wear occurs which leads to a post-peak reduction in shear stress
Shear stress (kPa)

60
(Frost et al., 2002). Due to the change in shearing mechanism at
50 50 kPa
higher normal stress (100 kPa), a change in variation of coefcient
40 100 kPa
of friction (m) with normal stress is observed.
30 150 kPa
An attempt has been made to study the relation between the
200 kPa
20 width of scour and mean particle size (D50) and also the variation of
10 the width of the scour with the normal stress. The average width of
0 scour at 100 kPa normal stress is 4.15 mm. The scour width at
0 2 4 6 8 10
150 kPa ranges from 3.5 mm to 9.75 mm. The large variation in scour
Horizontal displacement (mm)
width occurs due to the highly irregular shape of sand particles. It
must be noted that the width of scour is very small as compared to
(a)
the mean size of the sand particle. This indicates that only a small
portion of the sand particle produces indentation over the geo-
140
membrane surface. Fig. 4(b) shows the sand particle over the scour.
120 The typical dimensions in plan of the sand particle are 5.4 mm and
4.15 mm. The location of the particle clearly indicates that it has
100
Shear stress (kPa)

followed the groove produced by another particle. A closer look at

80 the particle reveals that it adhered to the groove while traversing.
200 kPa
60 The presence of small sized particles along the groove indicates that
150 kPa
either the particles are clay-sized or they are produced during
40 100 kPa
shear, due to breaking of the needle-like projections of the sand
20 particles. The minimum distance between two scours is 42 mm and
0
71 mm for 100 kPa and 150 kPa respectively. On comparing it with
0 5 10 15 20 the mean particle size (D50) of sand, the distance to size ratio (ratio
Horizontal displacement (mm) of distance between two scours and D50 of sand) is 0.20 and 0.35 at
100 kPa and 150 kPa respectively. The increase in distance between
(b) two scours with increase in normal stress indicates that the sand
particles, immediately above the geomembrane, are pushed side-
Fig. 3. Shear stress v/s horizontal displacement curve for (a) sand-geomembrane ways at high normal stress due to the combined action of vertical
interface and (b) sand-geotextile interface. push from upper particles and restriction provided by the geo-
membrane. With the application of normal stress, the sand parti-
cles push each other in the downward direction, but the downward
geotextile specimens was varied between 146  and 335  to
movement of particles, present in the vicinity of the geomembrane,
obtain a clear image.
is restricted. This results in lateral (or sideways) movement of sand
Fig. 3(a) and (b) show the shear stress v/s horizontal displace-
particles.
ment curves for sand-geomembrane and sand-geotextile interface
Fig. 3(b) shows the shear stress v/s horizontal displacement
respectively at different normal stress. From Fig. 3(a), it can be
curves for the sand-geotextile interface. The stress-displacement
observed that the initial slope is high for sand-geomembrane
curves show a high initial slope, followed by a reduction in slope

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14 7

Fig. 4. FESEM images of deformed geomembrane specimen showing a) minor scratches at geomembrane surface at 50 kPa normal stress; b) plowing of geomembrane surface at
100 kPa and c) at 150 kPa.

upto the peak. A reduction in shear stress occurs after the peak and
nally, it becomes constant. The high initial slope is due to the
mobilization of friction between sand and geotextile. The mobili-
zation of friction as well as interlocking of sand grains in the bers
of geotextile leads to a reduction in slope upto the peak. The peak
shear stress represents the maximum interlocking of sand particles
with geotextile bers. The FESEM image of deformed geotextile
specimen in Fig. 5(a) shows the interlocking of sand particles with
geotextile bers. The post-peak reduction in shear stress occurs due
to the elastic deformation or stretching of geotextile bers. Fig. 5(b)
shows the stretching of geotextile bers. After the post-peak
reduction in shear stress, a region of constant shear stress is
observed. This is indicative of the plastic deformation as well as
wearing and tearing of bers. Fig. 5(c) shows the tearing of geo-
textile bers.
An attempt has been made to evaluate the diameter of
geotextile bers before and after the shear test to get an idea on the
amount of stretching. This is based on the fact that as stretching
occurs, the ber diameter reduces due to Poisson's effect. Due to a
large variation in diameter of bers, the reduction in diameter of
bers is described with the help of a ber size distribution curve.
Fig. 6 shows the size distribution of various geotextile bers prior to
and after the test. The abscissa denotes the ber size range and the
ordinate shows the percentage ner. To understand the curve,
consider the point A. It represents the condition that 73% of bers
fall within the range of 5e20 mm or 73% of bers are ner than
20 mm. For determination of the size range, the mean value of the
diameter of each ber was calculated using image analysis. The size
was then distributed among different ranges and the number of
bers belonging to a particular group was determined. The per-
centage of total bers belonging to a particular group was calcu-
lated, followed by calculation of percentage ner. It can be observed

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
8 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 5. FESEM images of deformed geotextile specimen showing a) interlocking of sand particle; b) stretching of geotextile bers and c) tearing of geotextile bers.

100 from the gure that before direct shear testing, the percentage of
90 bers greater than 30 mm is 14% while it is reduced to 2% after the
80 testing (for normal stress  100 kPa). Similarly, the percentage of
70 A bers greater than 25 mm before and after testing is 30% and
Percentage finer

60 15e23% (for 50 kPa, 100 kPa and 200 kPa normal stress) respec-
50 tively. Therefore it can be observed that the size of bers is
40 decreasing and the percentage of bers in the smaller size range is
30 increasing. At 200 kPa normal stress, the reduction in ber diam-
20
eter can be observed clearly.
10
0 4.3. Effect of saturation of sand
5-10 10-15 15-20 20-25 25-30 30-35
Size range (m) Degree of saturation plays a signicant role on the interface
Before test 50 kPa 100 kPa 150 kPa 200 kPa
shear strength. The presence of moisture could lubricate the sand
particles at the interface leading to a reduction in interfacial shear
Fig. 6. Fiber size distribution curve for geotextile before and after shearing. strength and hence reduction in coefcient of friction. To study this

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14
Table 6
Results of the direct shear test on sand only and sand-geosynthetic interfaces at
different degrees of saturation of sand.
Interface Degree of saturation (%) m*
S1 0 0.90
S1 50 0.72
S1 100 0.72
S1-GM 0 0.44
S1-GM 50 0.36
S1-GM 100 0.35
S1-GT 0 0.67
S1-GT 50 0.57
S1-GT 100 0.56
effect, tests were carried out at 50% and 100% degree of saturation
and were compared with dry sand. For carrying out these tests, the
amount of water required to achieve the desired degree of satu-
ration was calculated and mixed with dry sand. The geosynthetics
were placed in the similar manner as explained in section 3.2.
Owing to difculties in maintaining the water content in the
sample, the degree of saturation reported herein is the degree of
saturation at the time of placement or before the shearing. Four
tests for each condition were carried out at normal stress ranging
from 50 kPa to 200 kPa. Table 6 shows the results of the direct shear
tests carried out at different degree of saturation for sand only and
the sand-geosynthetic interfaces. As the pore water pressure
measurement was not taken, the normal stress corresponds to the
total stress and not the effective stress. From Table 6, it can be
observed that the coefcient of friction (m*) is slightly higher for dry
sand (0.9) as compared to the unsaturated (0.72) and saturated
sand (0.72). This could be due to the lubrication of sand particles by
water. Small difference is observed in the results for unsaturated
and saturated sand. Similar moisture conditions could have pre-
vailed during the test as the moisture content during the test was
not controlled. It must be noted that the Mohr Coulomb's equation
can't be used to determine the parameters like interface friction
angle for unsaturated conditions. The determination of these pa-
rameters involves the application of unsaturated soil mechanics
concepts, in which, the shear strength is governed by net normal
stress as well as matric suction (Hamid and Miller, 2009). If the
linear best-t curves are used to determine the friction angle for an
interface or the coefcient of friction (m*), the results could be
misleading. However in the scope of the present paper, the linear
best-t curves for unsaturated sand have been used to determine
the interface friction angle. A careful observation of Table 6 reveals
that the coefcient of friction (m*) for sand-geomembrane interface
is higher for dry sand (0.44) as compared to the saturated (0.35) and
unsaturated sand (0.36). This indicates that the presence of mois-
ture lubricated the sand particles leading to a reduction in coef-
cient of friction. Similarly for sand-geotextile interface, the
coefcient of friction (m*) is higher for dry sand (0.67) as compared
to the saturated (0.56) and unsaturated sand (0.57). The lower
interface shear strength for saturated and unsaturated sand could
be due to the improper interlocking of sand particles with the
geotextile. The presence of water over the surface of geotextile
might have hindered the interlocking, resulting in a reduction in
coefcient of friction.
Figs. 7 and 8 show the FESEM images of deformed geo-
membrane and geotextile specimens respectively after direct shear
tests with sand at 50% degree of saturation. It can be observed that
the width of scour decreases with the increase in normal stress
initially and becomes constant afterward. The scour width ranges
from 3 mme11.75 mm, 1.6 mme2.9 mm and 2 mme3.4 mm at 50 kPa,
150 kPa and 200 kPa respectively. The results are similar to the dry
condition except that scour is visible at 50 kPa normal stress for 50%
Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
9
degree of saturation. The scour at 50 kPa normal stress is produced
due to the generation of negative pore-water pressure, which in-
creases the effective stress on the sand particle. Thus the critical
normal stress for dry condition (stress corresponding to initiation
of plowing) is different from the critical normal stress for unsatu-
rated condition. Therefore the shearing mechanism for sand-
geomembrane interface not only depend on the normal stress,
but also on the degree of saturation of sand. The minimum distance
between two scour lines is 35 mm and 118 mm at 50 kPa and 150 kPa
normal stress respectively and the corresponding distance to mean
particle size ratio is 0.17 and 0.56. On comparing these results with
dry condition, it can be observed that the distance to size ratio for
unsaturated conditions is higher than the dry conditions. The
possible explanation for this behavior could be the occulated
structure of the sand particles at unsaturated conditions.
From Fig. 8, it can be observed that the sand particles get
adhered to the geotextile bers at 50% degree of saturation, which
is quite different from the observation made for tests involving dry
sand. The reason for this behavior could be the generation of matric
suction at the interface. The suction generated at the interface
during shear pulls the sand particles towards the geotextile bers
and thus the particles get adhered to the bers.
4.4. Effect of mean particle size of sand
To study this effect, two sands with same morphological char-
acteristics and different mean particle size (D50) were taken. The
sand with small mean particle size is denoted as S1 and the one
with large mean particle size is denoted as S2. For this series of
tests, the relative density was kept constant at 80% and the normal
stress for each interface was varied from 50 kPa to 200 kPa. Table 5
shows the results of the direct shear test conducted with different
sand types. A small variation in the coefcient of friction (m*) for
sand only (difference of 0.01) and sand-geotextile interface (dif-
ference of 0.02) was observed with the mean particle size. The
interface shear strength of sand-geotextile interface depends upon
the asperities, opening size of geotextile and particle size of sand.
The matching of mean particle size with size of asperities of geo-
textile leads to an increase in the interface shear strength, due to
better interlocking (Vangla and Latha, 2016a). A small variation in
coefcient of friction (m*) for sand-geotextile interface is due to the
small range of mean particle size (D50 0.21e0.44 mm) used in the
present study. The range of mean particle size in the present study
does not inuence the interlocking and frictional mechanism of
sand with geotextile at the interfaces. But for sand-geomembrane
interface, a reduction in coefcient of friction (m*) with increase
in mean particle size (D50) was observed. The presence of large size
particle led to a reduction in the contact stress per particle. This
reduction in contact stress resulted in a decrease in the interface
shear strength for sand-geomembrane interface and ultimately the
reduction in coefcient of friction (m*).
The FESEM images of geomembrane specimens with sand S2
(with D50 0.44) showed very little amount of scouring (or
plowing). This type of behavior can be visualized clearly in Fig. 9(a)
and (b). Such behavior is due to the presence of large sized particles
which reduce the contact stress per unit particle. Due to the
reduced contact stress, the plastic indentation over the geo-
membrane surface reduces and ultimately leads to a reduction in
shear strength (and coefcient of friction) as is observed in Table 5.
On observing FESEM images in Fig. 9(a) and (b), the width of the
damaged portion varies from 1.85 mme3.78 mm and 29 mm at
100 kPa and 200 kPa respectively. The FESEM images of geotextile
specimens in Fig. 9(c) and (d) show interlocking of sand grains and
tearing of geotextile bers. Thus, the variation of mean particle size
in the present study did not affect the shearing mechanism for the
10 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 7. FESEM images of deformed geomembrane specimens at a) 50 kPa; b) 150 kPa; c) 200 kPa normal stress for tests involving unsaturated sand.

sand-geotextile interface. Therefore similar results were obtained 4.6. Effect of rate of shearing
for the sand-geotextile interface with both sands.
To study the effect of rate of shearing on the interface behavior
of sand and geosynthetics, the shearing rate was varied from
4.5. Effect of relative density of sand
0.314 mm/min to 2.54 mm/min while maintaining the relative
density at 80%. Table 8 presents the results of the direct shear tests
To study this effect, tests were carried out at different relative
on sand-geosynthetic interfaces with different rate of shearing. It
density of sand ranging from 40% to 80%. Table 7 shows the results
can be observed that the coefcient of friction (m*) decreases with
of the direct shear tests at different relative density for sand only,
the increase in the rate of shearing for both the interfaces upto a
sand-geomembrane and sand-geotextile interface. A small varia-
particular value, after which it becomes almost constant. At a
tion of coefcient of friction (m*) with the relative density is
higher loading rate, the time required for rearrangement of sand
observed for sand-geomembrane (0.4e0.44) interface. The re-
particles reduces, this results in a reduction in the interface shear
striction imposed by the geomembrane at the interface reduces the
strength and ultimately a reduction in the coefcient of friction. It
tendency of dilation of sand and mitigates the effect of relative
must be noted that the coefcient of friction (m*) is maximum for
density of sand. For sand-geotextile interface, the coefcient of
the shearing rate of 0.314 mm/min (0.44 for S1-GM and 0.67 for S1-
friction (m*) increases with the increase in relative density of sand.
GT) while it is nearly equal at the rate of 0.502 mm/min (0.33 for S1-
This is due to the increase in tendency for dilation with increase in
GM and 0.59 for S1-GT) and 2.54 mm/min (0.35 for S1-GM and 0.63
relative density.

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14 11

Fig. 8. FESEM images of deformed geotextile specimens at a) 100 kPa; b) 150 kPa; c) 200 kPa normal stress for tests involving unsaturated sand.

for S1-GT). The present result is in good agreement with the results (1) Microstructural study on deformed geomembrane speci-
of Tan et al. (1998). mens reveals that the shearing mechanism changes from
sliding to plowing with increase in normal stress. The width
of scour produced in the geomembrane surface is very small
as compared to the mean size of sand particle and the min-
5. Conclusion
imum distance between two parallel scours increases with
the increase in normal stress.
This paper presents the ndings of an extensive experimental
(2) The shearing mechanism for sand-geomembrane interface
investigation carried out on different interfaces involving sand and
depends on the degree of saturation of sand along with the
geosynthetics using modied large size direct shear box. The rst
normal stress. The microstructural study on deformed geo-
series of experiments was conducted to study the shear behavior of
membrane specimens reveals plowing at 50 kPa normal
sand only, sand-geomembrane and sand-geotextile interface. The
stress for test involving unsaturated sand, while no plowing
next series of experiments was conducted to study the effect of
is observed for tests involving dry sand at the same normal
different physical properties of sand and testing conditions on the
stress. Also, the minimum scour distance to mean particle
sand-geosynthetic interface behavior. To study the failure mecha-
size ratio is higher for unsaturated sand as compared to dry
nism, microstructural studies were conducted on deformed geo-
sand due to the occulated structure of sand particles in
membrane and geotextile specimens after the test. The following
unsaturated condition.
conclusions may be drawn from the present study:

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
12 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Fig. 9. FESEM images of deformed (a) geomembrane specimens at 100 kPa and (b) 200 kPa normal stress; (c) geotextile specimens at 100 kPa and (d) 200 kPa normal stress for tests
involving sand S2 (with D50 0.44).

Table 7 Table 8
Results of the direct shear test on sand only and sand-geosynthetic interfaces at Coefcients of friction for sand-geosynthetic interfaces at different shearing rates.
different relative densities of sand.
Interface Rate (mm/min) m*
Interface Relative density (%) m*
S1-GM 0.314 0.44
S1 40 0.62 0.502 0.33
S1 60 0.82 2.54 0.35
S1 80 0.90 S1-GT 0.314 0.67
S1-GM 40 0.43 0.502 0.59
S1-GM 60 0.40 2.54 0.63
S1-GM 80 0.44
S1-GT 40 0.61
S1-GT 60 0.65 mean particle size (D50 0.21). This is due to the reduction in
S1-GT 80 0.67 contact stress per particle with the increase in mean particle
size.
(3) For the sand with larger mean particle size (D50 0.44), little (4) Microstructural study on deformed geotextile specimens
amount of scouring (or plowing) is observed in deformed reveals that the shearing mechanism for sand-geotextile
geomembrane specimens as compared to sand with smaller interface is interlocking of sand particles with the

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14
geotextile bers, stretching and tearing of geotextile bers.
While the interlocking of sand grains and the tearing of bers
were clearly visible in the FESEM images, the stretching of
bers was determined through image analysis. The reduction
in diameter of bers due to stretching was determined by
plotting the ber size distribution curve, which conrmed
the stretching of bers.
(5) The sand particles got adhered to the geotextile bers for the
tests involving unsaturated sand. This is due to the suction
generated at the interface during shear, which pulls the sand
particles toward geotextile.
(6) The deformed geotextile specimens show similar features
(stretching, tearing of bers and interlocking of sand-grains)
for tests involving sands with different mean particle size
(ranging from 0.21 mm to 0.44 mm). Therefore similar re-
sults are obtained for tests involving sands with mean par-
ticle size ranging between 0.21 mm and 0.44 mm.
Acknowledgement
The authors would like to show sincere gratitude to the Director,
CSIR-CBRI, Roorkee for providing infrastructural facilities, contin-
uous guidance and support. The authors would also like to thank
the anonymous reviewers for their valuable time and suggestions.
References
Afzali-Nejad, A., Lashkari, A., Shourijeh, P.T., 2017. Inuence of particle shape on the
shear strength and dilation of sand-woven geotextile interfaces. Geotext.
Geomembr. 45 (1), 54e66.
Alfaro, M., Miura, N., Bergado, D., 1995. Soil-Geogrid reinforcement interaction by
pullout and direct shear tests. Geotech. Test. J. 18 (2), 157e167.
Anubhav, Basudhar, P.K., 2010. Modeling of soilewoven geotextile interface
behavior from direct shear test results. Geotext. Geomembr. 28 (4), 403e408.
Anubhav, Basudhar, P.K., 2013. Interface behavior of woven geotextile with rounded
and angular particle sand. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (12), 1970e1974.
ASTM D 4354, 2012. Standard Practice for Sampling of Geosynthetics and Rolled
Erosion Control Products (RECPs) for Testing. American Society for Testing and
Materials.
ASTM D 5321, 2008. Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefcient of Soil
and Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear
Method. American Society for Testing and Materials.
Athanasopoulos, G.A., 1993. Effect of particle size on the mechanical behaviour of
sand-geotextile composites. Geotext. Geomembr. 12 (3), 255e273.
Bergado, D.T., Ramana, G.V., Sia, H.I., 2006. Evaluation of interface shear strength of
composite liner system and stability analysis for a landll lining system in
Thailand. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (6), 371e393.
Blmel, W., Brummermann, K., 1996. Interface friction between geosynthetics and
soils and between different geosynthetics. In: Groot, De, Hoedt, Den, Termaat
(Eds.), Geosynthetics: Applications, Design and Construction. Balkema, Rotter-
dam, Netherlands, pp. 209e216.
Blmel, W., Stoewahse, C., Dixon, N., Kamugisha, P. and Jones, D.R.V., 2000. British-
German cooperative research on geosynthetic friction testing methods. In:
Proceedings of the 2nd European geosynthetics conference, Bologna, pp.
923e927.
Bouazza, A., 1998. Evaluation of soilegeosynthetics interaction for some landlls in
Algiers. In: Proceedings of 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics,
25e29 March, Atlanta, GA, USA, pp. 59e462.
Choudhary, A.K., Krishna, A.M., 2016. Experimental investigation of interface
behaviour of different types of granular soil/geosynthetics. Int. J. Geosynth.
Ground Eng. 2 (1), 1e11.
DeJong, J.T., Westgate, Z.J., 2005. Role of overconsolidation on sandegeomembrane
interface response and material damage evolution. Geotext. Geomembr. 23 (6),
486e512.
Dove, J.E., Frost, J.D., 1996. A method for measuring geomembrane surface rough-
ness. Geosynth. Int. 3 (3), 369e392.
Dove, J.E., Frost, J.D., 1999. Peak friction behavior of smooth geomembrane-particle
interfaces. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 125 (7), 544e555.
Dove, J.E., Bents, D.D., Wang, J., Gao, B., 2006. Particle-scale surface interactions of
non-dilative interface systems. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (3), 156e168.
Esmaili, D., Hatami, K., Miller, G.A., 2014. Inuence of matric suction on geotextile
reinforcement-marginal soil interface strength. Geotext. Geomembr. 42 (2),
139e153.
Ferreira, F.B., Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.L., 2015. Direct shear behavior of residual
soilegeosynthetic interfaceseinuence of soil moisture content, soil density
and geosynthetic type. Geosynth. Int. 22 (3), 257e272.
Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001
13
Fleming, I.R., Sharma, J.S., Jogi, M.B., 2006. Shear strength of geomembraneesoil
interface under unsaturated conditions. Geotext. Geomembr. 24 (5), 274e284.
Fox, P., Thielmann, S., Stern, A., Athanassopoulos, C., 2014. Interface shear damage to
a HDPE geomembrane. I: gravelly compacted clay liner. J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng. 140 (8).
Frost, J.D., Lee, S.W., 2001. Microscale study of geomembrane-geotextile in-
teractions. Geosynth. Int. 8 (6), 577e597.
Frost, J.D., DeJong, J.T., Recalde, M., 2002. Shear failure behavior of gran-
ularecontinuum interfaces. Eng. Fract. Mech. 69 (17), 2029e2048.
Frost, J.D., Lee, S.W. and Cargill, P.E., 1999. The evolution of sand structure adjacent
to geomembranes. In Proceedings of Geosynthetics (Vol. 99), pp. 559e573.
Fuggle, A.R. and Frost, J.D., 2010. Particle size effects in interface shear behavior and
geomembrane wear. In Proceedings of International Symposium on Charac-
terization and Behavior of Interfaces, pp. 51e57.
Gao, J.L., Zhang, M.X., Zhang, W.J., 2010. Interface frictional property between sand
and geomembrane. In: Advances in Environmental Geotechnics. Springer, Ber-
lin Heidelberg, pp. 822e827.
Garg, K.G. and Saran, S., 1990. Evaluation of soil-reinforcement interface friction. In:
Proceedings of the Indian Geotechnical Conference 90, Mumbai, India, Vol. 1,
pp. 27e31.
Gilbert, R.B., Byrne, R.J., 1996. Strain-softening behavior of waste containment
system interfaces. Geosynth. Int. 3 (2), 181e203.
Giroud, J.P., 1984. Geotextiles and geomembranes. Geotext. Geomembr. 1 (1), 5e40.
Giroud, J.P., Darrasse, J., Bachus, R.C., 1993. Hyperbolic expression for soil-
geosynthetic or geosynthetic-geosynthetic interface shear strength. Geotext.
Geomembr. 12 (3), 275e286.
Hamid, T.B., Miller, G.A., 2009. Shear strength of unsaturated soil interfaces. Can.
Geotech. J. 46 (5), 595e606.
Hatami, K., Esmaili, D., 2015. Unsaturated soil-woven geotextile interface strength
properties from small-scale pullout and interface tests. Geosynth. Int. 22 (2),
161e172.
Hsieh, C., Hsieh, M.W., 2003. Load plate rigidity and scale effects on the frictional
behavior of sand/geomembrane interfaces. Geotext. Geomembr. 21 (1), 25e47.
IS 1498, 2007. Classication and Identication of Soils for General Engineering
Purposes. Bureau of Indian Standards.
Izgin, M., Wasti, Y., 1998. Geomembraneesand interface frictional properties as
determined by inclined board and shear box tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 16 (4),
207e219.
Khoury, C.N., Miller, G.A., Hatami, K., 2010. Shear strength of unsaturated soil-
geotextile interfaces. Proc. Geo-Florida 307e316.
Khoury, C.N., Miller, G.A., Hatami, K., 2011. Unsaturated soilegeotextile interface
behavior. Geotext. Geomembr. 29 (1), 17e28.
Kim, D., Frost, J.D., 2011. Effect of geotextile constraint on geotextile/geomembrane
interface shear behavior. Geosynth. Int. 18 (3), 104e123.
Koerner, R.M., 2012. Designing with Geosynthetics, sixth ed. Xlibris Corporation.
Koutsourais, M.M., Sprague, C.J., Pucetas, R.C., 1991. Interfacial friction study of cap
and liner components for landll design. Geotext. Geomembr. 10 (5), 531e548.
Kwak, C.W., Park, I.J., Park, J.B., 2013. Evaluation of disturbance function for geo-
syntheticesoil interface considering chemical reactions based on cyclic direct
shear tests. Soils Found. 53 (5), 720e734.
Lee, K.M., Manjunath, V.R., 2000. Soil-geotextile interface friction by direct shear
tests. Can. Geotech. J. 37 (1), 238e252.
Ling, H.I., Pamuk, A., Dechasakulsom, M., Mohri, Y., Burke, C., 2001. Interactions
between PVC geomembranes and compacted clays. J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.
127 (11), 950e954.
Liu, C.N., Ho, Y.H., Huang, J.W., 2009. Large scale direct shear tests of soil/PET-yarn
geogrid interfaces. Geotext. Geomembr. 27 (1), 19e30.
Liu, H., Martinez, J., 2014. Creep behaviour of sandegeomembrane interfaces.
Geosynth. Int. 21 (1), 83e88.
Lopes, M.L., Ferreira, F., Carneiro, J.R., Vieira, C.S., 2014. Soilegeosynthetic inclined
plane shear behavior: inuence of soil moisture content and geosynthetic type.
Int. J. Geotech. Eng. 8 (3), 335e342.
Lopes, P.C., Lopes, M.L., Lopes, M.P., 2001. Shear behavior of geosynthetics in the
inclined plane testeinuence of soil particle size and geosynthetic structure.
Geosynth. Int. 8 (4), 327e342.
Martin, J.P., Koerner, R.M. and Whitty, J.E., 1984. Experimental Friction Evaluation of
Slippage between Geomembranes, Geotextiles and Soils. In: Proceedings of the
International Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, USA, pp. 191e196.
Mitchell, J.K., Seed, R.B., Seed, H.B., 1990. Kettleman Hills waste landll slope failure.
I: liner-system properties. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (4), 647e668.
Moraci, N., Cardile, G., Gioffre, D., Mandaglio, M.C., Calvarano, L.S., Carbone, L., 2014.
Soil geosynthetic interaction: design parameters from experimental and theo-
retical analysis. Transp. Infrastruct. Geotechnol. 1 (2), 165e227.
Negussey, D., Wijewickreme, W.K.D., Vaid, Y.P., 1989. Geomembrane interface fric-
tion. Can. Geotech. J. 26 (1), 165e169.
Orman, M.E., 1994. Interface shear-strength properties of roughened HDPE.
J. Geotech. Eng. 120 (4), 758e761.
O'Rourke, T.D., Druschel, S.J., Netravali, A.N., 1990. Shear strength characteristics of
sand-polymer interfaces. J. Geotech. Eng. 116 (3), 451e469.
Saxena, S.K. and Wong, Y.T., 1984. Frictional Characteristics of a Geomembrane. In:
Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, USA,
pp. 191e196.
Sayeed, M.M.A., Ramaiah, B.J., Rawal, A., 2014. Interface shear characteristics of jute/
polypropylene hybrid nonwoven geotextiles and sand using large size direct
shear test. Geotext. Geomembr. 42 (1), 63e68.
14 P. Punetha et al. / Geotextiles and Geomembranes xxx (2017) 1e14

Stark, T.D., Williamson, T.A., Eid, H.T., 1996. HDPE geomembrane/geotextile interface
shear strength. J. Geotech. Eng. 122 (3), 197e203.
Tan, S.A., Chew, S.H., Wong, W.K., 1998. Sandegeotextile interface shear strength by
torsional ring shear tests. Geotext. Geomembr. 16 (3), 161e174.
Vaid, Y.P., Rinne, N., 1995. Geomembrane coefcients of interface friction. Geosynth.
Int. 2 (1), 309e325.
Vangla, P., Latha, G.M., 2015. Inuence of particle size on the friction and interfacial
shear strength of sands of similar morphology. Int. J. Geosynth. Ground Eng. 1
(1), 1e12.
Vangla, P., Latha, G.M., 2016a. Effect of particle size of sand and surface asperities of
reinforcement on their interface shear behavior. Geotext. Geomembr. 44 (3),
254e268.
Vangla, P., Latha, G.M., 2016b. Shear behavior of sand-smooth geomembrane in-
terfaces through micro-topographical analysis. Geotext. Geomembr. 44 (4),
592e603.
Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.D.L., Caldeira, L., 2015. Sand-Nonwoven geotextile interfaces
shear strength by direct shear and simple shear tests. Geomech. Eng. 9 (5),
601e618.
Vieira, C.S., Lopes, M.D.L., Caldeira, L.M., 2013. Sand-geotextile interface character-
ization through monotonic and cyclic direct shear tests. Geosynth. Int. 20 (1),
26e38.
Wasti, Y., Ozdzgn, Z.B., 2001. Geomembraneegeotextile interface shear proper-
ties as determined by inclined board and direct shear box tests. Geotext.
Geomembr. 19 (1), 45e57.
Williams, N.D. and Houlihan, M.F., 1987. Evaluation of interface friction properties
between geosynthetics and soils. In. Proc. Geosynthetic 87 Conf., Industrial
Fabrics Association International, New Orleans, pp. 616e627.
Zettler, T.E., Frost, J.D., DeJong, J.T., 2000. Shear-induced changes in smooth HDPE
geomembrane surface topography. Geosynth. Int. 7 (3), 243e267.
Zhang, G., Zhang, J.M., 2009. Large-scale monotonic and cyclic tests of interface
between geotextile and gravelly soil. Soils Found. 49 (1), 75e84.

Please cite this article in press as: Punetha, P., et al., Microstructural investigation on mechanical behavior of soil-geosynthetic interface in direct
shear test, Geotextiles and Geomembranes (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2017.02.001