Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 358

Comparison of the Hydraulic Conductivity of GCLs with That of

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Bentonitic Mixtures

A. Hakan Ören1; Tuğçe Özdamar Kul2; Merve E. Koç3; and Havva Demirkıran3
1
Associate Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dokuz Eylül Univ., Tınaztepe
Yerleşkesi, Buca-İzmir/Turkey (corresponding author).
2
Research Assistant, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dokuz Eylül Univ., Tınaztepe
Yerleşkesi, Buca-İzmir/Turkey.
3
Graduate Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Dokuz Eylül Univ., Tınaztepe
Yerleşkesi, Buca-İzmir/Turkey.

Abstract: This study discusses and compares the hydraulic conductivities of GCLs to
those of sand-bentonit mixtures (SBMs)/zeolite-bentonite mixtures (ZBMs). ZBMs had
20% and 30%, whereas SBM had 20% bentonite contents. The effective stress applied
on GCLs was greater than bentonitic mixtures. Neither GCLs nor bentonitic mixtures
were prehydrated with water. The results showed that hydraulic conductivities of non-
prehydrated GCLs were significantly greater than those of ZBMs and SBMs. Applying
greater effective stress did not reduce the hydraulic conductivities of GCLs. Although
bentonitic mixtures were non-prehydrated during hydraulic conductivity tests, they had
been hydrated with water before compaction. In order to figure out this condition and to
make better comparison between the hydraulic conductivities of GCLs and bentonitic
mixtures, two brand new GCLs were prehydrated with DI water (DIW). Then,
permeation was begun with DIW until one pore volume of flow was passed through the
samples. Finally, the permeant was switched to landfill leachate and hydraulic
conductivities were determined. The results showed that initial permeation of GCLs
with DIW decreased the hydraulic conductivity when GCLs were further permeated with
landfill leachates. Also, the hydraulic conductivities of GCLs were less than those of
bentonitic mixtures. This may be attributed to greater effective stress applied on GCLs.

INTRODUCTION

Clays are the principal constituent of impermeable barriers. Not only compacted
clayey soils, but also bentonites can be used with sands, such as sand-bentonite mixtures
(SBMs), as barrier material (Kenney et al., 1992; Alston, et al., 1997). SBMs have some
physical advantages when compared to compacted clays. For example, flow is controlled
by the bentonite particles in the mixture; thus, the hydraulic conductivity of SBMs is
around 1.0×10-11 m/s which is less than that of many compacted clays (Gleason et al.,

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 359

1997; Stern and Shackelford, 1998). In addition, SBMs have low volumetric shrinkage
with respect to compacted clays, resulting high resistance to desiccation cracking
(Kleppe and Olson, 1985).
Recently, a new bentonitic mixture, i.e. zeolite-bentonite mixture (ZBM), has been
proposed as an alternative to SBM (Kayabalı, 1997; Kayabalı and Mollamahmutoğlu,
2000). Zeolite is a rock forming material that has porous structure (Jacobs and Förstner,
1999). Moreover, zeolite has negatively charged surface and high specific surface area
(Mumpton, 1999). Because of these advantages, some researchers thought that it would
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

be better if zeolite is replaced with sand in bentonitic mixtures (Kayabalı, 1997). On the
other hand, Ören et al. (2011) reported up to 20-30 times greater hydraulic conductivities
for ZBMs when compared to the hydraulic conductivities of SBMs at the same bentonite
contents. However, the hydraulic conductivity of ZBM is still lower than 1.0×10-9 m/s
which is suggested limit for the most environmental regulatory agencies.
Another barrier material whose use has been rising up over time is the geosynthetic
clay liner (GCL). GCLs are carpet-like thin materials that are composed of sodium or
polymer treated bentonites sandwiched between two geotextiles. The hydraulic
performance of GCLs is controlled by the bentonites. Thus, many studies have been
conducted to determine the factors controlling the hydraulic conductivity of GCLs
(Petrov et al., 1997; Shackelford et al., 2000; Jo et al., 2001; Guyonnet et al., 2005;
Katsumi et al., 2007; Guyonnet et al., 2009; Benson et al., 2010).
Sufficient knowledge has been acquired in the literature about the hydraulic
conductivity of GCLs. However, there is little information about the comparison of this
behavior between GCLs and bentonitic mixtures (Kraus et al., 1997). Thus, the aim of
this study is to investigate and discuss the hydraulic performance of SBM, ZBM and
GCLs in the case of permeation with landfill leachates.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials
GCLs (GCL-A and GCL-B) were supplied from local manufacturers. Both were
needle punched which connect the woven and nonwoven geotextiles. Although “lower
quality bentonite (LQB)” is referred to as the GCL having bentonite with lower amount
of montmorillonite content (Lee et al., 2005), GCL-A was named as “lower quality”
herein because of the lower liquid limit of bentonite (i.e. 108%). GCL-B was named as
“higher quality” on account of greater liquid limit value. GCL-B was polymer treated
and thus, the liquid limit of this GCL was 1163% (Ören and Demirkıran, 2015).
Clinoptilolite type of natural zeolite was supplied from Rota Madencilik Co.
(Manisa,Turkey). Zeolite was composed of sand sized uniform grains. Sand was
gathered from Manisa, but sieved in the laboratory to achieve the same grain size as with
zeolite. The maximum grain size was 1.2mm and fines contents were less than 2% for
both materials. Na-bentonite was provided from Karakaya Co (Ankara, Turkey). The
liquid and plastic limits were 529% and 38%, respectively.
The bentonite amount in the mixture was arranged based on the total weight. For
example, 20% SBM (or ZBM) means 20% bentonite was mixed with 80% of sand (or
zeolite) by dry weight. The other details about the sample preparation can be followed
from Ören et al. (2014) and Ören and Kaya (2014).

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 360

The hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted with Type II DI water and landfill
leachates. The landfill leachates were gathered from İzmir and Aydın landfills. The
cation concentrations of the leachates (i.e. Na+, K+, Mg2+, Ca2+) were determined with
ICP-OES (Table 1). The pH and electrical conductivity of the leachates were determined
with Accumet XL50 and the results are presented in Table 1 as well.
Table 1. Cation concentrations, pH and electrical conductivity of landfill leachates.

Electrical
Landfill Na+ K+ Mg2+ Ca2+
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

pH Conductivity
Leachate (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L) (mg/L)
(mS/cm)
LL-1 2903 1135 265 101 7.6 20.8
LL-2 1507 1643 173 409 8.3 21.1
Methods
The physical properties of the materials were determined following the ASTM
standards. The sieve and hydrometer analyses were conducted as described in ASTM
D421 and ASTM D422. The consistency limits of bentonites were determined following
ASTM D4318. Standard Proctor compaction tests were performed at 2% and 3-5% wet
of optimum water contents of SBM and ZBM (ASTM D698). The compaction
parameters of SBMs and ZBMs are presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Compaction parameters of bentonitic mixtures.

Mixture Type Bentonite Content (%) γdmax (kN/m3) wopt (%)

SBM 20 15.1 20.5
ZBM 20 10.6 40.8
ZBM 30 10.8 39.5
Hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted following ASTM D5084 and ASTM
D6766. The GCLs were subjected to 100 kPa whereas bentonitic mixtures were
subjected to 50 kPa cell pressures. No backpressure was applied during the tests. For the
non-prehydrated condition, GCLs were subjected to landfill leachates for 48 hours under
no hydraulic gradient (Ruhl and Daniel, 1997; Jo et al., 2001) and then flow was
initiated from top to bottom. In the second case, GCLs were permeated with DIW about
1 PVF and then permeant was switched to landfill leachate. The permeant leachates
were used until the end of the hydraulic conductivity tests. Henceforth, this case is
referred to as “prehydrated”.
On the other hand, SBM/ZBMs were not prehydrated with water during hydraulic
conductivity test, because they were already wet when compacted at slightly wet of
optimum water contents. Similar to GCLs, the flow direction was from top to bottom.
The outflow ends of tubings were open to the atmosphere.
Since bentonitic mixtures were compacted, it was thought that applying lower
effective stress would be more appropriate for SBM/ZBM than for GCLs while
comparing the hydraulic conductivity data. Thus, the hydraulic gradients were 200 and
24 and the average effective stresses were 90 kPa and 42.5 kPa for GCLs and bentonitic
mixtures, respectively.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 361

Total of 14 hydraulic conductivity tests were conducted throughout the study. Because
limited flexible-wall permeameters were available in the laboratory, the hydraulic
conductivities of bentonitic mixtures with DIW were not measured. The test durations
for bentonitic mixtures were as long as 18 months whereas those of GCLs were as low
as couple days.
The chemical equilibrium of hydraulic conductivity tests were controlled with pH and
electrical conductivity measurements as suggested by ASTM D6766. Effluent values
were normalized with the influent values to determine pHout/pHin and ECout/ECin. The
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

target termination criterion was 1.0±0.1 for both normalized values.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The hydraulic conductivity behaviors of non-prehydrated GCLs permeated with LL-1

and LL-2 are shown in FIG 1 as a function of pore volumes of flow (PVF). The
hydraulic conductivity of GCL-A that was permeated with LL-1 decreased from 7.5×10-
8
m/s to 4.4×10-9 m/s along the test duration. The hydraulic conductivity of GCL-B with
the same permeant decreased from 3.0×10-7 m/s to 1.0×10-7 m/s at the end of 40 PVF.
The hydraulic conductivity of GCL-A permeated with LL-2 was about two orders of
magnitude greater than that of GCL-A permeated with LL-1. Contradictory, the
hydraulic conductivity of GCL-B was around 1.4×10-8 m/s when the permeant was LL-2
(FIG. 1).
-6
10
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

-7
10

-8
GCL-A (LL-1)
10 GCL-B (LL-1)
GCL-A (LL-2)
GCL-B (LL-2)
-9
10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Pore Volumes of Flow

FIG. 1. Hydraulic conductivity of GCLs when permeated with landfill leachates.

FIG. 2 shows the hydraulic conductivities of SBM/ZBM with the landfill leachates. It
is obvious that the flow passed through the bentonitic mixtures were significantly less
than the flow passed through GCLs. The lower thickness (0.5 cm versus 5.8 cm) led to
have more PVFs for GCLs than for bentonitic mixtures.
Based on the last six readings, the final hydraulic conductivity for 20% SBM is
2.9×10-11 m/s (FIG 2a). The hydraulic conductivity of 20% ZBM decreased from
2.1×10-8 m/s to approximately 1.2×10-10 m/s after about 0.3 PVF and reduced
furthermore (9.2×10-11 m/s) with LL-1. Such kind of reduction was not seen for the

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 362

hydraulic conductivity of 30% ZBM. As the bentonite content increased in the mixture,
the hydraulic conductivity of 30% ZBM became one half of the hydraulic conductivity
of 20% ZBM (FIG. 2a).

-7

Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

10

-8 LL-1 20% SBM

10 20% ZBM
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

30% ZBM
-9
10

-10
10

-11
10
a)
-12
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Pore Volumes of Flow
-8
10
Hydraulic Conductivity (m/s)

20% SBM
LL-2 20% ZBM
-9
10 30% ZBM

-10
10

-11
10

b)
-12
10
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Pore Volumes of Flow

FIG. 2. Hydraulic conductivity of zeolite bentonite mixtures (ZBMs) and sand

bentonite mixtures (SBMs) when permeated with: a) LL-1 and b) LL-2.

The hydraulic conductivities of bentonitic mixtures permeated with LL-2 are shown in
FIG. 2b. The hydraulic conductivity of 20% SBM was as low as 2.9×10-11 m/s which is
equal to the hydraulic conductivity of 20% SBM permeated with LL-1. The hydraulic
conductivity behavior of 20% ZBM permeated with LL-2 was also similar to that of
20% ZBM permeated with LL-1. Considering the average of the last six readings, it can
be seen that the hydraulic conductivity of 30% ZBM was almost two times less than that
of 20% ZBM (FIG. 2b).
The pH and EC measurements on GCLs showed that termination criterion was
achieved at the end of all hydraulic conductivity tests. However, it was partially satisfied
with ZBMs. Regardless of the leachate type, pHout/pHin values were within 1.0±0.1 for
ZBMs. However, ECout/ECin values for %20 ZBM and 30% ZBM were 0.92 and 0.46

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 363

when permeated with LL-1, 0.25 and 0.38 when permeated with LL-2, respectively.
Considering the time limits of the project, the hydraulic conductivity tests on ZBMs
were terminated without satisfying these criterions.
The comparison of the hydraulic conductivities between non-prehydrated GCLs and
bentonitic mixtures are shown in FIG. 3. The GCLs had up to 4 orders of magnitude
greater hydraulic conductivities when compared to SBMs and ZBMs. The reason is that
bentonitic mixtures were slightly prehydrated during compaction test. After applying
compactive effort, swollen bentonites block the inter-granular pores, resulting reduction
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

in the hydraulic conductivity. The difference in the initial water contents is responsible
for the differences in the hydraulic conductivities.

FIG. 3. Comparison of hydraulic conductivities between non-prehydrated GCLs

and bentonitic mixtures.

It is easy to calculate the initial water contents of bentonites in the GCLs. However, it
is rather complex to calculate the water contents of bentonites in binary mixtures such as
SBMs and ZBMs. It is assumed for SBMs that sand has no affinity for water and only
bentonite particles uptake water (Kenney et al., 1992). However, zeolite has porous
structure and thus, the water is shared between zeolite and bentonite particles. Because
of this, bentonite water contents in SBMs are greater than bentonite water contents in
ZBMs. Calculations also shows that bentonite water content decreases as the bentonite
amount in the mixture increases. Thus, bentonite water content in 30% ZBM is less than
that in 20% ZBM. The details can be found in Ören et al. (2011). Based on this
calculation, the initial bentonite water contents for 20% SBM, 20% ZBM and 30% ZBM
were calculated as 103%, 87%, and 65%, respectively. On the other hand, the initial
bentonite water contents for GCLs were around 12% which are far below bentonitic
mixtures.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 364

It is obvious that the lower the bentonite water content in GCLs the lower is the swell
of bentonite particles when faced with landfill leachates. This allows preferential flow
paths along GCLs. The flow paths could not be closed even effective stress applied on
GCLs were greater than bentonitic mixtures.
To mimic the effect of GCL hydration on hydraulic conductivity, GCL-A and GCL-B
were permeated with DIW and subsequently with landfill leachates. As expected, the
hydraulic conductivities of non-prehydrated GCLs were significantly greater than the
hydraulic conductivities of prehydrated GCLs. The final hydraulic conductivities of
prehydrated GCL-A were 5.4×10-12 m/s and 9.7×10-12 m/s, when permeated with LL-1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

and LL-2, respectively. The hydraulic conductivities of prehydrated GCL-B with the
same leachates were almost one half the hydraulic conductivities of GCL-A.
Permeating the GCLs with DIW enable bentonite particles to swell and close the
preferential flow paths within GCLs. When the permeant is switched to landfill leachate,
negatively charged clay surface is started to be bombarded with the cations of leachates,
resulting cation exchange between permeant and the bentonite particles. Since bentonite
particles are already swollen with DIW, cation exchange slowly takes place which
depends on bentonite and permeant properties (Jo et al., 2001; Kolstad et al., 2004; Lee
and Shackelford, 2005). In this study, the test duration (~ 6 months) applied on
prehydrated GCLs were not sufficient to provide fully replacement of cations between
bentonite particles and landfill leachates. pH and electrical conductivity measurements
also revealed that hydraulic conductivity tests did not come to chemical equilibrium.
However, it can be stated that DIW permeated GCLs were unaffected from the adverse
effect of landfill leachates by means of short term hydraulic conductivity.
The hydraulic conductivities of prehydrated GCLs are also compared with those of
bentonitic mixtures (FIG. 4). It is depicted in FIG. 4 that hydraulic conductivities of
bentonitic mixtures were greater than GCL-A and GCL-B when permeated with L-1 and
LL-2. Regardless of leachate and GCL type, SBMs had up to one order of magnitude,
whereas ZBMs had up to 58 fold greater hydraulic conductivities than those of GCLs.
The differences in the hydraulic conductivities of GCLs and bentonitic mixtures are
possibly due to the higher effective stress applied on GCLs (90 kPa vs. 42.5 kPa).

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 365
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

FIG. 4. Comparison of hydraulic conductivities between DIW permeated GCLs

and bentonitic mixtures.

Contrary to non-prehydrated GCLs, effective stress influenced the hydraulic

conductivity of prehydrated GCLs. The hydraulic conductivity of the GCLs and
bentonitic mixtures are governed by the voids between the bentonite particles. Increase
in the effective stress result in a closer packing of particles that reduce the pore diameter
for mobile water. Thus, the greater the effective stress, the lower is the void ratio of
prehydrated bentonite.

CONCLUSIONS

The hydraulic conductivities of GCLs and bentonitic mixtures (SBMs and ZBMs) to
two different landfill leachates (LL-1 and LL-2) were discussed and compared in this
study. Brand new two GCLs were used during the hydraulic conductivity tests one of
which was lower quality (GCL-A) and the other was higher quality (GCL-B) regarding
to their liquid limit values. Hydraulic conductivity tests were also carried out on SBMs
and ZBMs. To investigate the combined influence of effective stress and permeation
while comparing the hydraulic conductivities between GCLs and bentonitic mixtures,
the effective stress applied on bentonitic mixtures were set lower than those of GCLs.
The results showed that the hydraulic conductivity of 20% SBM was lower than that of
20% and 30% ZBMs. However, the hydraulic conductivities of non-prehydrated GCLs
were up to 4 orders of magnitude greater than those of bentonitic mixtures when LL-1
and LL-2 were used as the permeant. This shows that applying greater effective stress on
GCLs could not reduce the hydraulic conductivity.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 366

Impact of effective stress on the hydraulic conductivity was seen when GCLs were
initially permeated with DIW and then LL-1 or LL-2. In this case, the hydraulic
conductivities of DIW permeated GCLs were decreased to a level as low as 2.4×10-12
m/s. The hydraulic conductivities of DIW permeated GCLs were about 12 times and 58
times less than the hydraulic conductivities of SBM and ZBMs, respectively.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

The main part of this study was occupied by the hydraulic conductivity results of
GCLs. This part was funded by the Scientific and Technical Research Council of
Turkey, TUBITAK (Grant No: 111M718). The second part of this study is related to the
hydraulic conductivities of bentonitic mixtures which was supported by Dokuz Eylül
University under Scientific Research Projects (Grant No: 2012.KB.FEN. 006). The
authors are grateful for both funding.

REFERENCE

Alston, C., Daniel, D.E. and Devroy, D.J. (1997). "Design and construction of sand-
bentonite liner for effluent treatment lagoon, Marathon, Ontario." Canadian
Geotechnical Journal, 34 (6): 841–852.
Benson, C.H., Ören, A.H. and Gates, W.P. (2010). "Hydraulic conductivity of two
geosynthetic clay liners permeated with a hyperalkaline solution." Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, 28 (2): 206–218.
Gleason, M.H., Daniel, D.E. and Eykholt, G.R. (1997). "Calcium and sodium bentonite
for hydraulic containment applications." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123 (5): 438–445.
Guyonnet, D., Gaucher, E., Gaboriau, H., Pons, C.-H., et al. (2005). "Geosynthetic clay
liner interaction with leachate: Correlation between permeability, microstructure, and
surface chemistry." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131
(6): 740–749.
Guyonnet, D., Touze-Foltz, N., Norotte, V., Pothier, C., et al. (2009). "Performance-
based indicators for controlling geosynthetic clay liners in landfill applications."
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 27 (5): 321–331.
Jacobs, P.H. and Förstner, U. (1999). "Concept of subaqueous capping of contaminated
sediments with active barrier systems (ABS) using natural and modified zeolites."
Water Research, 33 (9): 2083–2087.
Jo, H.Y., Katsumi, T., Benson, C.H. and Edil, T.B. (2001). "Hydraulic conductivity and
swelling of nonprehydrated GCLs permeated with single-species salt solutions."
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127 (7): 557–567.
Katsumi, T., Ishimori, H., Ogawa, A., Yoshikawa, K., et al. (2007). "Hydraulic
conductivity of nonprehydrated geosynthetic clay liners permeated with inorganic
solutions and waste leachates, Soils and Foundations, 47 (1): 79-96.
Kayabalı, K. (1997). "Engineering aspects of a novel landfill liner material: bentonite-
amended natural zeolite." Engineering Geology, 46 (2): 105–114.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016
 Geo-Chicago 2016 GSP 271 367

Kayabalı, K. and Mollamahmutoğlu, M. (2000). "The influence of hazardous liquid

waste on the permeability of earthen liners." Environmental Geology, 39 (3-4): 201–
210.
Kenney, T.C., Veen, W.A. Van, Swallow, M.A. and Sungaila, M.A. (1992). "Hydraulic
conductivity of compacted bentonite–sand mixtures." Canadian Geotechnical
Journal, 29 (3): 364–374.
Kleppe and Olson (1985). "Desiccation cracking of soil layers." In the hydraulic barriers
in soil and rock, STP 874, ASTM, Philadelphia: 263-275.
Kraus, J.F., Craig H., B., Allan E., E. and Edwin J. Chamberlain (1997). "Freeze-thaw
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Balikesir Universitesi on 10/19/19. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

cycling and hydraulic conductivity of bentonitic barriers." Journal of Geotechnical

and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 123 (3): 229–238.
Lee, J.-M. and Shackelford, C.D. (2005). "Impact of bentonite quality on hydraulic
conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners." Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131 (1): 64–77.
Lee, J.-M., Shackelford, C.D., Benson, C.H., Jo, H.-Y., et al. (2005). "Correlating index
properties and hydraulic conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners." Journal of
Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 131 (11): 1319–1329.
Mumpton, F. A. (1999). "La roca magica: uses of natural zeolites in agriculture and
industry." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of
America, 96 (7): 3463–3470.
Ören, A. H. and Demirkıran H. (2015). "A study on determining the hydraulic
conductivity of geosynthetic clay liners in the laboratory (in Turkish)." IMO
Technical Journal, 26 (129), 7191-7213.
Ören, A. H., Durukan, S. and Kayalar, A.Ş. (2014). "Influence of compaction water
content on the hydraulic conductivity of sand-bentonite and zeolite-bentonite
mixtures." Clay Minerals, 49 (1): 109–121.
Ören, A.H. and Kaya, A. (2014). "Compaction and volumetric shrinkage of bentonitic
mixtures." Proceedings of the ICE - Geotechnical Engineering, 167: 1–11.
Ören, A.H., Kaya, A. and Kayalar, A.Ş. (2011). "Hydraulic conductivity of zeolite–
bentonite mixtures in comparison with sand–bentonite mixtures." Canadian
Geotechnical Journal. 48 (9): 1343–1353.
Petrov, R., Rowe, R. and Quigley, R. (1997). "Selected factors influencing GCL
hydraulic conductivity." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 123 (8): 683-695.
Ruhl, J.L. and Daniel, D.E. (1997). "Geosynthetic clay liners permeated with chemical
solutions and leachates." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering. 123 (4): 369–381.
Shackelford, C.D., Benson, C.H., Katsumi, T., Edil, T.B., et al. (2000) "Evaluating the
hydraulic conductivity of GCLs permeated with non-standard liquids." Geotextiles
and Geomembranes, 18 (2-4): 133–161.
Stern, R.T. and Shackelford, C.D. (1998). "Permeation of sand-processed clay mixtures
with calcium chloride solutions." Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, 124 (3): 231–241.

© ASCE

Geo-Chicago 2016