Geotextiles and Geomembranes 10 (1991) 335-355

Stability and Tension Considerations Regarding Cover

Soils on G e o m e m b r a n e Lined Slopes

Robert M. Koerner & Bao-Lin Hwu

Geosynthetic Research Institute, Drexel University, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19104,
USA

(Received 22 May 1990; accepted 2 July 1990)

ABSTRACT

The occurrence of cover soil instability in the form of sliding on

geomembranes is far too frequent. Additionally, there have been cases of
wide width tension failures of the underlying geomembranes when the
friction created by the cover soil becomes excessive. While there are
procedures available in the literature regarding rational design of those
topics, it is felt that a unified step-by-step perspective might be worth while.
It is in this light that this paper is written. Included are four separate, but
closely interrelated, design models. They are the following:
• cover soilstability on side slopes when placed above a geomembrane,
• cover soil reinforcement provided by either geogrids or geotextiles,
• wide width tension mobilized in the geomembrane caused by the
interface friction of the soils placed above and below the geo-
membrane, and
• circumferential tension mobilized in the geomembrane by subsidence
of the subgrade material beneath the geomembrane.
Each of these designs are developed in detail and a numeric problem is
framed to illustrate the design procedure. Emphasized throughout the
paper is the need for realistic laboratory test values of interface friction,
in-plane tension and out-of-plane tension of the geomembranes. By having
realistic experimental values of allowable strength they can be compared to
the required, or design, strength for calculation of the resulting factor-of-
safety against instability or failure.
335
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-1144/91/$03.50 O 1991 Elsevier Science Publishers
Ltd, England. Printed in Great Britain
336 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

1 INTRODUCTION

Geomembrane lined soil slopes are common in many areas of civil

engineering construction, but nowhere are they more prevalent than in the
environmental related field of the containment of solid waste. Cover soils
on geomembranes placed above the waste as in landfill caps and closures as
well as lined side slopes beneath the waste are commonplace as the
sketches of Fig. 1 indicate. The variations of soil types beneath the
geomembrane as well as above the geomembrane are enormous. They
range from moist clays in the form of composite liners to drainage sands
and gravels of very high permeability. The likelihood of having other
geosynthetic materials adjacent to the geomembranes (like geotextiles,
geonets and drainage geocomposites) presents another set of variables to
be considered. Lastly, the existence of many different geomembrane
types, having different thicknesses, strengths, elongations and surface
characteristics leads to the necessity of performing a rational design on
such systems. Clearly, the development of design models to evaluate the

~ SOIL

Geomembrane COVER
~,~~:~'~G eotextile
.if ~',~d~w'~l~. _Geonet or Geocomposite
I ,,~- "~il ~ Geomembrane "
' ' 1 j 7 waste Waste J

(a) Landfill Cover with Soil (b) Landfill Cover with Drainage
Above Geomembrane Geosynthetic Above Geomembrane

Proposed~ ~ Proposed/n~/~
~ ~ , , a j Waste ~~',,,, ~Wastel -

Geomembrane COV R SO L Geonet or :CO EllSOIL

SUB.SOI~I~I~m Geomembranef

(c) Landfill Liner with Soil

Above Geomembrane (d) Landfill Liner with Drainage
Geosynthetic Above Geomembrane

Fig. 1. V a r i o u s solid waste g e o m e m b r a n e covers a n d liners involving natural soils a n d / o r

d r a i n a g e geosynthesis.
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 337

stability of the overlying materials as well as the tensile stresses that may be
induced in the underlying geomembranes should always be performed.
Fortunately, both the stability of the overlying soil materials and the
reduction of tensile stress in the g e o m e m b r a n e can be accommodated by
reinforcing the cover soil with either geogrids or geotextiles. This is
becoming known as veneer stability reinforcement and is necessitated due
to a n u m b e r of cover soil stability, or sloughing, failures, some of which are
shown in the photographs of Fig. 2.
This paper presents several design models and their development into
design equations for cover soil stability (both without and then with
reinforcement) and for the induced tensile stresses that are mobilized in
the underlying geomembrane. The approach taken in this paper will utilize
a single g e o m e m b r a n e , but it should be recognized that double liners are
frequently used beneath solid and liquid waste. Design considerations into
the secondary liner, however, can be handled by reasonable extensions of
the material to be presented.

2 INTERFACE FRICTION CONSIDERATIONS

It will be seen that at the heart of the design equations to be developed in

this paper are interface friction values between the geomembrane and the
overlying soils or drainage geosynthetics and also against the underlying
soils or drainage geosynthetics. These values are obtained by direct shear
evaluation in simulated laboratory tests. Unfortunately, many aspects of
the direct shear test have not yet been standardized (although A S T M has a
Task Group working on a draft standard), and many important details
must be left to the design engineer and testing organization. For example,
the following items need to be carefully considered:
• minimum or maximum size of shear box
• aspect dimensions of the test specimen
• type of fixity of the g e o m e m b r a n e to the shear box and to a substrate
• moisture conditions during normal stress application
• type of liquid to use during sample preparation and testing
• m e t h o d and duration of normal stress application
• strain controlled or stress controlled shear application
• rate of shear application
• moisture conditions and drainage during shear application
• duration of test
• n u m b e r of replicate tests at different normal stresses
• linearity of resulting failure envelope
338 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

(a)

(b)
Fig. 2. Cases of cover soil instability for (a) Case la and (b) Case lc as shown in Fig. 1
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 339

Thus the use of reported values in the published literature can only be used
with considerable caution and, at best, for preliminary design. 1-3 For final
design and/or permitting, the site specific conditions and the proposed
materials must be used in the tests so as to obtain realistic values of the
shear strength parameters adhesion (ca) and interface friction (6).
Additionally, tests should also be performed on the soil by itself so as to
obtain a reference value for comparison to the inclusion of the geo-
membrane. Calculation of the adhesion efficiency on soil cohesion and a
frictional efficiency to that of the soil by itself are meaningful in assessing
the numeric results of the designs to follow, i.e.

E c = (Ca/C) x 100 (1)

E~ = (tan 8/tan ~) x 100 (2)

where Ec = efficiency on cohesion, ca = adhesion of soil-to-geo-

m e m b r a n e , c = cohesion of soil-to-soil, E,~ = efficiency on friction,
t~ = friction angle of soil-to-geomembrane, ~b = friction angle of soil-to-
soil.

3 PAST INVESTIGATIONS AND ANALYSES

The isolation of free body diagrams depicting the site specific situation to
be analyzed is certainly not new. It is a direct extension of geotechnical
engineering of soil stability and is reasonably straightforward since the
failure plane against the geomembrane is clearly defined. Thus a computer
search is generally not necessary to locate the minimum factor-of-safety
(FS) stability value. Also, it should be recognized that the failure surface
is usually linear, rather than circular, log spiral, or other complicated
geometric shape in that it follows the surface of the geomembrane itself.
A procedure which nicely accommodates a clearly defined straight line
slip surface has been developed by the US Army Corps of Engineers. 4
Their wedge analysis procedures form the essence of the developments to
follow. The graphic procedures are outlined in Ref. 4 but are developed in
this paper into design equations in a more rigorous manner. Also to be
mentioned is the work of Giroud and Beech 5 and Giroud et al. 6 in
providing excellent insight into several aspects of the design.
In the first referenced paper, 5 a two-part wedge m e t h o d is utilized to
arrive at a similar equation as ours except without an adhesion term. Also,
the treatment at the top of the slope is slightly different. Their work will be
referenced in the second problem of this set of four examples and a
comparison of results will be made. In the second referenced paper, 6 a
340 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

large o v e r b u r d e n stress necessitated the use of arching theory to recognize

that a limiting value will occur when the g e o m e m b r a n e is located beneath
deep fills. This is not the case with the shallow overburden stresses
imposed by cover soils placed on g e o m e m b r a n e s that are the focus of this
paper. In the fourth example to be presented we will use the full thickness
of the overburden times its unit weight. Additionally, we will not use a
deformation/strain reduction value in the interest of being conservative.
The reference cited by Giroud et al. 6 should be used in this regard.

4 M O D E L NO. 1: S T A B I L I T Y O F C O V E R SOIL A B O V E A
GEOMEMBRANE

Consider a cover soil (usually a permeable soil like gravel, sand or silt)
placed directly on a g e o m e m b r a n e at a slope angle of 'oJ'. Two discrete
zones can be visualized as seen in Fig. 3. Here, one sees a small passive
wedge resisting a long, thin active wedge extending the length of the slope.
It is assumed that the cover soil is of uniform thickness and constant unit
weight. At the top of the slope, or at an intermediate berm, a tension crack
in the cover soil is considered to occur thereby breaking communication
with additional cover soil at higher elevations.
Resisting the tendency for the cover soil to slide is the adhesion and/or
interface friction of the cover soil to the specific type of underlying
g e o m e m b r a n e . The values of c,, and ~ must be obtained from a simulated
laboratory direct shear test as described earlier. Note that the passive
wedge is assumed to move on the underlying cover soil so that the shear
parameters c and ~, which come from soil-to-soil friction tests, will also be
required.

Fig. 3. Cross-section of cover soil on a g e o m e m b r a n e illustrating the various forces

involved on the active and passive wedges.
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 341

By taking free bodies of the passive a n d active w e d g e s with the

a p p r o p r i a t e forces being applied, the following f o r m u l a t i o n for the
stability FS results, see e q n (3). N o t e that the e q u a t i o n is n o t an explicit
solution for the FS, a n d m u s t be solved indirectly. T h e c o m p l e t e
d e v e l o p m e n t of the e q u a t i o n is given in A p p e n d i x 1.
(FS)2[0.53'LH sin2(2to)] - (FS)[3' L H cos 2 to tan 6 sin (2to)
+ ca L cos to sin (2to) + 3' L H sin 2 to tan ~bsin (2to)
+ 2 c H cos to + y H 2 tan ~b] + [(3' L H cos to tan
+ caL)(tan ~bsin to sin(2to)] = 0 (3)
Using a x 2 + b x + c = 0, w h e r e
a = 0-53' L H sin 2 2to
b = - [3" L H cos 2 to tan ~ sin(2to) + ca L cos to sin(2to)
+ 3"LH sin 2 to tan ~bsin(2to) + 2 c H cos to + y H 2 tan ~b]
c = (3" L H cos to tan fi + ca L)(tan ~bsin to sin (2to))

the resulting FS is as follows:

- b + V ~ z - 4ac
FS = 2a (4)

W h e n the c a l c u l a t e d FS value falls below 1-0, a stability failure of the cover

soil sliding on the g e o m e m b r a n e is to be anticipated. H o w e v e r , it s h o u l d
be r e c o g n i z e d that s e e p a g e forces, seismic forces a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n
p l a c e m e n t forces have n o t b e e n c o n s i d e r e d in this analysis a n d all of these
p h e n o m e n a t e n d to lower the FS. T h u s a value of g r e a t e r t h a n 1.0 s h o u l d
be t a r g e t e d as being the m i n i m u m acceptable FS. A n e x a m p l e p r o b l e m
illustrating the use of the above e q u a t i o n s follows:
E x a m p l e P r o b l e m : G i v e n a soil cover soil slope of to = 18.4 ° (i.e. 3 to 1),
L = 1 0 0 m , H = 9 0 c m , y = 1 8 k N / m 3, c = 1 5 k P a , ca = 0, ~b= 32 ° ,
6 = 14 °, d e t e r m i n e the resulting FS
Solution:

a = 0.5(18)(100)(0-9) sin2(36.8 °)
= 290 kN/m
b = - [(18)(100)(0-9) cos2(18.4 °) tan(14 °) sin(36.8 °)
+ 0 + (18)(100)(0.9) sin2(18-4 °) tan(32 °) sin(36.8 °)
+ 2(15)(0.9) cos(18.4 °) + 18(0.81) tan(32°)]
= -[218+0+60+26+9]
= - 313 kN/m
c = [(18)(100)(0.9) cos(18.4 °) tan(14 °) + 0][tan(32 °) sin(18.4 °) sin(36.8°)]
= [383][0.118]
= 45 kN/m
342 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

313 + X/(-313) 2 - 4(290)(45)

FS=
580

FS = 0-91, which signifies that a stability failure will occur.

5 M O D E L NO. 2: R E I N F O R C E M E N T O F C O V E R SOIL O N A
GEOMEMBRANE

Once the cover soil FS becomes unacceptably low for the site specific
conditions (as illustrated in the previous problem), a possible solution to
the situation is to add a layer of geogrid or geotextile reinforcement as
shown in Fig. 4. In the case of landfill covers, the tensile stresses that are
mobilized in the reinforcement are carried over the crown to (generally)
an equal and opposite reaction on the opposing slope. Alternatively, these
stresses can be carried in friction via an anchorage m o d e of resistance as
would occur in an intermediate berm situation. For a landfill liner, the
stresses in the reinforcement are generally carried to an individual anchor
trench extending behind the g e o m e m b r a n e anchor trench. If the rein-
forcement is a geogrid it is placed within the cover soil so that soil can
strike-through the apertures and the maximum a m o u n t of anchorage
against the transverse ribs can be mobilized. W h e n using geotextiles, they
can be placed directly on the g e o m e m b r a n e , or e m b e d d e d within the cover
soil so as to mobilize friction in both surfaces.
The tensile stress of the reinforcement layer per unit width is calculated
by setting EA equal to Ep in Fig. 3 and solving for the unbalanced force Tin
Fig. 4 which is required for a FS equal to one. This value of T becomes
Treqd which is given in eqn (5). The complete development is available in
Appendix 2.

cH "yH2 ]
Treqd = yLHsin(w- ~) cos~b sinw + sin2-----~tan~b
cos8 -c,,L- cos(@ + oa) (5)

This value is now c o m p a r e d to the allowable wide width tensile strength of

the particular geogrid or geotextile under consideration, i.e.

FS = Ta.ow/T~eqa (6)

Note that the value of Tauow must include such considerations as

 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 343

Reinforcementj~ = ~ (Geogrid or
Geotextile)

-SOIL

Geomembrane

(a)

T (Geogrid or
~l,~eotextile)
Proposed~

/ so, L

SUB-SOIL

(b)

Fig. 4. Geogrid or geotextile reinforcement of (a) a cover soil above waste and (b) a
geomembrane beneath waste.

installation damage, creep and long-term degradation from chemical or

biological interactions. If the value is obtained from a test such as A S T M
D-4595, the wide width strip tensile test, the use of partial FS values is
r e c o m m e n d e d to a c c o m m o d a t e the above items. 7 A n example p r o b l e m
using eqns 5 and 6 follows:
Example Problem: Continue the previous p r o b l e m of cover soil instability
where a geogrid with allowable wide width tensile strength of 60 kN/m is
being considered (i.e. the value includes the above mentioned partial FS).
What is the resulting overall FS? The parameters are to = 18.4 ° ,
L = 1 0 0 m , H = 9 0 c m , y = 1 8 k N / m 3, c = 1 5 k P a , ca = 0, ~b = 32 ° ,
6 = 14 °.
344 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

Solution:

(18)(100)(0"9)sin(4"4°) -0
Treqd = cos(14 o)

(15)(0-9) (18)(0-81) tan(32o) ]

c°s(32°) sin(18.4 o) + sin(36.8 o)
cos(50.4 °)

= 128 - 0 - 77

Treqd = 51 k N / m

FS = T,,ilow/Trcqd
60
51

FS = 1-18, which is marginally acceptable and

a stronger reinforcement or a double
layer should be considered.
Note: Using the formulation d e v e l o p e d by Giroud and Beech 5 with the
soil cohesion equal to zero results in a Trcqd = 106 kN/m, while the above
formulation adjusted for a zero cohesion results in Trcqa = 108 kN/m.
Thus the methods appear to be comparable to one another.

6 M O D E L N O . 3: G E O M E M B R A N E T E N S I O N S T R E S S E S D U E
TO UNBALANCED FRICTION FORCES

The shear stresses from the cover soil above the liner act d o w n w a r d on the
underlying g e o m e m b r a n e and in so doing mobilize upward shear stresses
beneath the g e o m e m b r a n e from the underlying soil. The situation is
shown in Fig. 5.
Three different scenarios can be envisioned:
• If ~'u = TL, the g e o m e m b r a n e goes into a state of pure shear which
should not be of great concern for most types of
geomembranes.
• If ru < ~'L, the g e o m e m b r a n e goes into a state of pure shear up to a
magnitude of ru and the balance of ~'L -- ru is simply not
mobilized.
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 345

r \ XU - Cau+(W coso,) ) tan~ u

"CL = CaL+(W COSO))tan8L

Fig. 5. Shear and tensile stresses acting on a covered geomembrane.

I
break ~ CSPE-R
I ~CPE'R

~
IA-R

FORCE. / ~ PVC
WIDTH I --~ VLDPE

a l l o ~

E - 20 to 50% STRAIN

Fig. 6. Tensile behavior of various geomembrane types.

• If ru > TL, the geomembrane goes into a state of pure shear equal to
~'L and the balance of ~u--~'L must be carried by the
g e o m e m b r a n e in tension.
This latter case is the focus of this part of the design process. The situation
generally occurs when a material with high interface friction (like sand or
gravel) is placed above the g e o m e m b r a n e and a material with low interface
friction (like high moisture content clay) is placed beneath the geo-
membrane. The essential equation for the design is as follows, where T is
in units of force per unit width, i.e. T/W. The complete derivation follows
in Appendix 3.
T/W = [(Cau - CaL) + 7H COSto(tan tStj -- tan t~L)] L (7)
The resulting value of force per unit width T / W is then compared to the
allowable strength of the g e o m e m b r a n e which is shown schematically for
different g e o m e m b r a n e s in Fig. 6. The target values a r e T b r e a k for scrim
346 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

reinforced g e o m e m b r a n e s , Tyield for semi-crystalline g e o m e m b r a n e s and

Tauow (at a certain value of strain) for nonreinforced flexible geo-
membranes. Note that these curves should be obtained from a wide width
tensile test such as A S T M D-4885.
Since there is generally no reduction for partial FS in these values of
laboratory obtained strength, the final FS in the design should be quite
conservative. An example problem follows:

Example Problem: Given the same landfill cover as described in the

previous problems with a g e o m e m b r a n e having an allowable strength of
30 kN/m. The shear strength parameters of the g e o m e m b r a n e to the upper
soil are Cau = 0 kPa and 6u = 14° and to the lower soil are CaL = 2.3 kPa
and 6L = 5 °. Calculate the tension in t h e g e o m e m b r a n e and the resulting
FS against g e o m e m b r a n e failure.

Solution:

T/W = [(C~v - Cae) + yH cos w(tan 6v - tan 6L)] L

= [(0 - 2"3) + (18)(0-9)cos(18-4°)[tan(14 °) - tan(5°)]] 100
= I - 2.3 + 2.5] 100
= 20 kN/m
FS = Tallow/Treqd
30
20
FS = 1.5, which is barely acceptable.

Note: An alternative design to the above is to bench the cover soil

(thereby decreasing the slope length) or use a liner whose lower surface
has a higher adhesion or a higher friction surface, than the one used in the
example thereby increasing C~,Land/or 6e.

7 M O D E L NO. 4: G E O M E M B R A N E T E N S I O N S T R E S S E S D U E
TO SUBSIDENCE

W h e n e v e r subsidence occurs beneath a g e o m e m b r a n e and it is supporting

a cover soil some induced tensile stresses will occur due to out-of-plane
forces from the overburden. Such subsidence is actually to be expected in
closure situations above completed or a b a n d o n e d landfills where the
underlying waste is generally poorly compacted. The magnitude of the
induced tensile stresses in the g e o m e m b r a n e depends upon the dimensions
of the subsidence zone and on the cover soil properties.
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 347

co_soi
UnitWeight"y" ~
-b,.
~ I__e
,]H

Fig. 7. Tensile stresses in a geomembrane mobilized by cover soil and caused by

subsidence.

The general scheme is shown in Fig. 7 where the critical assumption is

the shape of the deformed geomembrane. In the analysis which is provided
in Appendix 4, the deformed shape is that of a spheroid of gradually
decreasing center point along the symmetric axis of the deformed
g e o m e m b r a n e . 8 As a worst case assumption, the g e o m e m b r a n e is
assumed to be fixed at the circumference of the subsidence zone. The
required tensile force in the g e o m e m b r a n e can be solved in terms of a force
per unit width Treqd, o r as a stress, i.e. O'rcqd. The latter will be used in this
analysis since it will be compared to a laboratory test method resulting in
the compatible term. The necessary design equation is as follows where
the specific terms are given in Fig. 7.

2DL2 Tcs Hc~

O'~¢qd = 3 t ( D 2 + L2 ) (8)

U p o n calculating the value of O'reqd for the site specific situation under
consideration, it is compared to an appropriate laboratory simulation test.
R e c o m m e n d e d at this time is a three-dimensional, out-of-plane, tension
test of the same configuration as Fig. 7. It is available as G R I Test Method
GM-4. 9 Thus the formulation for the final FS becomes the following:
FS = Ora,,ow/Crreqd (9)
Since the value of oauow is used directly from the test m e t h o d without any
reduction in the form of partial FS values, relatively conservative values
should be required. A n example problem follows:
Example Problem: Given the same cover soil situation as in the previous
example, except now a local subsidence occurs which is estimated to be
0.3 m deep by 1 m radius. The g e o m e m b r a n e is 1.0 mm thick has a ~rauowof
348 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

7.0 MPa. Determine the FS of the geomembrane against the mobilized

tensile stresses.
Solution:

2DL2 Y~sHcs
O'reqd - - 3 t ( D 2 + L 2)

2(0-3)(1) 2(18)(0.9)
3(1.0/1000)[(0.3) 2 + (1)21

= 1705 kPa

F S = O',,n,,w/O'reqd

= 7000/1705

= 4.1, which is acceptable.

8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The occurrence of cover soils sliding off geomembrane lined slopes is not
an infrequent incident. While less obvious, but of even greater concern,
there are often tensile stresses imposed on the underlying geomembrane.
The occurrence of extensive tensile failures of geomembranes on side
slopes is also known to have occurred. This paper is focused toward a
series of four design models to be used to analyze various aspects of the
situation.
The first model considered the cover soil's stability by itself. The design
procedure is straightforward but it does require a set of carefully generated
direct shear tests to realistically obtain the interface friction parameters.
The growing tendency toward steeper and longer slope angles gives rise
to the second design model which is veneer reinforcement of the cover soil.
Geogrids and geotextiles have shown that they can nicely reinforce the
cover soil and the first design example was modified accordingly. The
design leads to the calculation of the required tensile strength of the
reinforcement. This value must then be compared to a laboratory-
generated wide width tensile strength of the candidate reinforcement
material. It is important in this regard to consider long-term implica-
tions which can be addressed by partial FS values.
Both of the above analyses serve to set up the third design scenario, that
being a calculation procedure for determination of the induced tensile
stresses in the underlying geomembrane brought on by unbalanced
friction values. Whenever the frictional characteristics beneath the liner
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 349

are low (e.g. when the liner is placed on a high moisture clay soil as it is in a
composite liner), this type of analysis should be performed. The tensile
stress in the g e o m e m b r a n e is then compared to the wide width tensile
strength of the g e o m e m b r a n e for its resulting FS.
Lastly, a design procedure for calculation of out-of-plane generated
tensile stresses in the g e o m e m b r a n e was developed. This situation could
readily arise by subsidence of solid waste beneath the geomembrane. The
resulting tensile stresses in the g e o m e m b r a n e must then be compared to a
properly simulated laboratory test for the FS. Such three dimensional
axi-symmetric test procedures are currently available.
Each of the four above described models along with their design/
analysis procedures were illustrated by means of an example problem
dealing with a cover soil in a solid waste closure situation. This type of
application is the primary focus of the paper. However, similar situations
can arise elsewhere. For example, the same situation occurs in the case of
gravel covered primary g e o m e m b r a n e liners on the side slopes of unfilled,
or partially filled, landfills. These slopes may have to be exposed to the
elements for many years until the waste provides sufficient passive
resistance and final stability. In the meantime, cover soil instability will
cause sloughing and can expose the geomembrane to UV light, high
temperatures via direct exposure, and a significantly shortened lifetime.
Hopefully, the use of design models such as presented here (and
elsewhere), coupled with the appropriate test method simulating actual
field behavior, will lead to recognition of the problems encountered and to
a widespread rational design of cover soils on geomembrane lined side
slopes.

REFERENCES

1. Martin, J. P., Koerner, R. M. & Whitty, J. E., Experimental friction

evaluation of slippage between geomembranes, geotextiles and soils. In
Proceedings International Conference on Geornembranes, IFAI, Denver,
CO, 1984, pp. 191-6.
2. Koerner, R. M., Martin, J. P. & Koerner, G. R., Shear strength parameters
between geomembranes and cohesive soils. J. Geotex. and Geomem., 4
(1986) 21-30.
3. Mitchell, J. K., Seed, R. B. & Seed, H. B., Kettleman Hills waste landfill
slope failure. I--Liner-system properties. J. Geotech. Engng, 116(4) (1990)
647-60.
4. US Army Corp of Engineers, Manual EM 1110-1902, US Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, DC, 1960.
5. Giroud, J. P. & Beech, J. F., Stability of soil layers on geosynthetic lining
systems. Geosynthetics '89 Conference, IFAI, San Diego, CA, 1989, pp.
35-46.
35.0 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes

6. Giroud, J. P., Bonaparte, R., Beech, J. F. & Gross, B. A., Design of soil
layer-geosynthetic systems overlying voids. J. Geotextiles and Geomem-
branes, 9(1) (1990) 11-50.
7. Koerner, R. M., Designing with Geosynthetics, 2nd Edition, Prentice Hall
Publishing Company, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1990.
8. Koerner, R. M., Koerner, G. R. & Hwu, B.-L., Three dimensional,
axi-symmetric geomembrane tension test. In Geosynthetic Testing for Waste
Containment Applications, ed. R. M. Koerner, ASTM STP 1081, ASTM,
Philadelphia, PA, 1990.
9. GRI, Three Dimensional Geomembrane Tension Test, GRI Test Method
GM-4, Geosynthetic Research Institute, Philadelphia, PA, 1989.

A P P E N D I X 1: D E R I V A T I O N OF FS FOR C O V E R SOIL
STABILITY ON A G E O M E M B R A N E

WA Active
I Wedg
wp I I/ v,c,,

Wedge ~ ~ / ~,~ \

Passive Wedge
1 H2 T H2
P=T YE~ sin co cos co = s m 2"""'~

Cp= C H
/ to • L J cos to FS sin t.0

si"
 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu 351

~ C

°° J
.., 0 D,
°" i
°°° !

Passive Wedge

'~'=Wp
b=~ ~ wp
sin ~ sin (90° - OD) COS0D

Ep A--D
sin (90 ° + SD) sin (90° - 0D -- ~ )

Ep Cp + Wp • tan (~D
cos ¢ o = cos (¢D+ m)

cos ~ . [Cp + wp- ~.~ ¢D|

Ep = cos (0a + ~)

cos
C si--~
~. [ ~--~. H + ~~'H~ " tan¢ ]Dj
=
cos (<1~+ t~)

eos~D [ c'rt + ~.H ~ tan<~]

(cos ~ cos 0] - sin ~D sin ~ ) L ~ 2 sin Ig cos I~ " FS J
, [2.c.,.~o~=+y.,~.=,]
(COS ~ - - ta~ SD sin 6~) [. 2 " sin 6~ • COS ~ " FS ' J

FS [ 2' C" H • cos = + y " H~" tan$]

(FS ' cos ID- tan (~ - sin~) ~ "-'sin ~ " ~os ~'7 F'S
352 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

Active Wedge
WA= 7LH

Ca L

FA ~ I

ZA+CA W^ WA
sin 1~ Sr~ - s m 19o° + r ~ cos 8 D

W A sin {to - 8 D}
EA = cos ~D - CA,

w^ [~. o~o~ ~o ~o~ ~0~ ~o ]

= %
cos 8 D

C a .L
= ,/. L • H ( s i n c0- cos to t a n 8 DI - ~

~0+ co

EA= Ep

(2 C" H
Q
cos I11 + y . H 2 tan #)
7 " L - H • (sin ~ - cos 10 • tan 8 o ) - ~ =

T.L.H.(sin~_COS~stanS) C. L (2-C.H.cos~+~/.H2.tan~b)
. . . . . ~ = (FS ' cos 10 - t a n ' O ' sin m ) . (sin 2 ~ )

7" L " 14. ( s i n / B • F S - c o s IB • tan 8 ) - C , " L ( 2 " C ' H • cos ill + ? " H 2 • tan~)
FS (FS • cos Ii~ • sin 210 - tan 0 ' sin 10 • sin 2 ~ )

7' L" H' sin~' FS-7" L" H' cos~' tan 8 - C . ' L ( 2 . C " H . cos 0 J + y ' H 2 • tan<>)
FS ( F S " c o s ~ " sin 2 ~ - tan ~ • sin IB ' sin 2 ~ )
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 353

FS 2" (y" L ' H . s i n ~ . c o s ~ ' sin 2 ~ ) - F S • (7. L . H ' cos2~ • t a n S . sin 2 ~ )

- FS - (C a • L . cos I~. sin 21~) - FS . (7 • L . H . sin2l~l • tan ¢ . sin 2 ~ )

+ ( y . L . H " c o s l ~ , t a n S + C a. L ) . ( t a n ¢ . s i n ~ . s i n 2 l ~ ) = F S • (2. C ' H . c o s ~ + 7 . H 2.

FS2"(l'7"L'H'sin'2=]-FS.(y.L.H.cos2=.tanS.sin26~+C .L. cos=.sin2l~

+ y • L ' H . sin2~ • tan ¢ . sin 2 ~ + 2 • C ' H • cos ~ + 7 . H 2. tan 0)

+ ( y ' L " H • cos ~ ' tan 8 + C a • L ) " (tan ~ . sin ~ " sin 2~) =0

A P P E N D I X 2: D E R I V A T I O N OF R E Q U I R E D TENSILE
STRENGTH OF G E O G R I D OR GEOTEXTILE
R E I N F O R C E M E N T OF C O V E R SOIL ON A G E O M E M B R A N E

Reinforcement ,.~ ~ (Geogricl o!

" ~ ~ Geotexti,e~
SUB-SOIL
Geomembrano

~Waste/''-L~

Ep+T=E A = T=EA-Ep

y" L" H" sin ( ~ - S D )

EA = cos 8 D - CA

[C l"l +y'H2 DI
cos %" tan
~'" si~ ~ "
Ep: cos ((~D+ ~)
F S = I, S D - - & C D = ~

[C'H y'H 2 1
y" L" H" sin ( ~ - 8) cos*' + i-r a ' =
Treqd = cos 8 - CA - COS (0 + ~5)
354 Robert M. Koerner, Bao-Lin Hwu

APPENDIX 3: DERIVATION OF GEOMEMBRANE TENS1LI~

STRESS DUE TO UNBALANCED FRICTION FORCES

T,eq.a

Re~sfing Force T + TL" W . L

FS = ...... = - -, ........
Driving Force "tu " W ' L

(a) If ~u = ~:L,FS > l, pure shear @ ~ U = ~:t,

(b) If'tv < ~u FS > I, pure shear = ~ u, rest of (~L- 'CU)is not mobilized.
(c) If~,0 > *;L,FS may be'>, --or < I which depend on the T value
whenFS=l ~'cu W.L=T+z L, W . L

T = ' C U' W ' L - ' ¢ L ' W ' L

T
" ~ = (~tl- "cO" L

~ = C +ern" tang, on =T" H" cost~

zu = Car + T" H" cos ~ • tan ~u
z L = C~L + y~ H , cos ~ taa 8 L

T= {(C~v - c.,O + Y" H ' cos ~ . (tan ;Su - tan 8 0 1 - L

where C~a~low =

rJ~lt = Oeomembrane Wide Width Tensile Test

T 1
 Cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes 355

A P P E N D I X 4: D E R I V A T I O N OF G E O M E M B R A N E TENSILE
STRESS D U E TO S U B S I D E N C E OF M A T E R I A L B E N E A T H
THE G E O M E M B R A N E

Cover Soil ~ o~ ~H
Unit Weight ~ ~ cs

C (circumference) = 2- n . L

t = thickness of the geomemhrane

R2 = ( R - D ) 2 + L2 ~ R2 = R 2 ~ 2 " R" D + D2 + L 2

D2 + L 2 R-D
R = "'-"'D-
2
L

0L(2" 7t ' r)" d r . Yes ' HCS ' r = t~reqd' t" C" R

2 L3
--3 " ;t • ' TCS " HCS =arcqd' t ' ( 2 ' X " L)" R

2
•~ ' /t" L 3 ' Yes' HCS
ar~qa t" (2" x ' L)" R

[-2 ' TCS" HCS

3"t'R
2'D'L 2"Tcs'HCS
tSreqd 3 " t ' (D2 + L 2)