Geomembrane interface friction

D. NEGUSSEY
Colder Associates, 224 West 8th Avenue, Vancouver, B. C., Canada V5Y IN5
AND
AND Y. P. VAID
W. K. D. WIJEWICKREME
Department of Civil Engineering, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T I W5
Received February 9, 1988
Accepted September 6 , 1988
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

Interface friction between an HDPE geomembrane and an angular as well as a rounded sand, a gravel, and a geotextile
was investigated in a ring shear apparatus. The results indicate development of peak resistance at small strain and constant
residual interface friction angles at large strain. The magnitude and difference between peak and residual friction angles
increase with angularity. Interface friction angles between a geotextile and geomembrane were very low with no distinction
between peak and residual. At composite interfaces, sliding occurred much more readily at a finer grained than a coarse-
grained geomembrane interface.
Key words: geomembranes, geotextiles, interface friction, granular materials.

Le frottement a l'interface entre d'une part une gComembrane HDPE, et d'autre part, du sable avec des grains angulaires
ou arrondis, du gravier et un gCotextile, a CtC CtudiC au moyen d'un appareil de cisaillement circulaire. Les rCsultats
indiquent le dCveloppement d'une risistance de pic a faible dbformation, et des angles de frottement constants rksiduels
A l'interface a grande dkformation. La grandeur et la diffbrence entre le pic et les angles de frottement rbsiduel s'accroissent
avec I'angularitC. Les angles de frottement a l'interface entre un gCotextile et la giomembrane Ctaient t r b faibles et
il n'y avait pas de diffkrence entre le pic et le rCsiduel. Pour des interfaces composites, le glissement s'est produit beaucoup
plus facilement a une interface de la gbomembrane avec des grains fins par opposition a des grains grossiers.
For personal use only.

Mots clPs :gkomembranes, gkotextiles, frottement a l'interface, matCriaux pulvCrulents.

[Traduit par la revue]

Can. Geotech. J. 26, 165-169 (1989)

Introduction
The relatively low permeability, easy handling, and unit
cost of geomembranes have favoured their wide use in geo-
technical practice as barrier material for seepage control.
Particular applications may require placement of geo-
membranes on or beneath a variety of soils. As angular rock
or miscellaneous debris may puncture geomembrane liners,
direct placement of geomembranes on or beneath such
materials in generally not recommended. Separation of
geomembrane liners from direct contact with fine-grained
cohesive soils by a more pervious interlayer may be desired
to facilitate pore pressure dissipation. A geotextile or fine
granular bedding and cover are often prescribed for either
protection of the geomembrane or to facilitate lateral
drainage.
Interface friction parameters between geomembranes and
materials that come in direct contact with geomembrane
liners are essential for assessing the stability of structures
wherein a geomembrane boundary forms a potential sliding
surface. Reported interface friction parameters for sliding
resistance between smooth-surfaced geomembrane liners and
a variety of soil and geotextile materials (Martin et al. 1984)
are significantly less than the internal friction parameters
for the soil material constituting the bulk of the structure.
These values are based on laboratory experiments performed
. using large-sized direct-shear boxes. In general, little distinc-
tion between peak and minimum conditions nor stress and
strain level dependence of interface friction has been made.
In studies of Martin et al. (1984), no peak in the interface
resistance appears to have been noted. Similarly, Saxena and
Wong (1984) did not observe peak resistance except under
higher stress levels.
Use of reported low interface friction parameters in con-
junction with conventional safety factors can lead to design
recommendations of low side slopes and requirement of
excessive material quantities and development space. In more
recent developments, membranes with roughened surface
have been introduced with the expectation of improved inter-
face friction performance and consideration of steeper side
slopes.
Smooth-surfaced geomembrane liners continue to be used
in most geotechnical liner applications. Field tests to confirm
the actual margin of safety provided in design or reported
cases of failure and back analyses of smooth geomembrane
interface performance are not available. Current design
approaches may be too conservative and thus a closer
examination of interface friction parameters might have
economic and practical benefits.
The investigation report%"dherein examines the range of
interface friction angles that develops between geomembranes
and granular soils as well as geotextiles. Tests were carried
out in a ring shear apparatus and peak and residual (lower
bound) interface friction angles were examined.
Test materials
Tests were carried out representing interface conditions
between HDPE geomembrane and-Ottawa sand (ASTM-
C-log), concrete sand, angular heap gravel, and nonwoven
geotextile. The concrete sand used3 a r i s r sand comprised
of angular to subangular grains.
-

Printed in Canada / Imprime au Canada

 166 CAN.
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
10' 10 1 10 -'
GRAIN SIZE, m m
FIG. 1 . Gradations of the granular materials used in the testing
program.
Gradations of the sand and gravel materials are shown
in Fig. 1. The complete range of particle sizes of the gravel
material (well graded) was used for some of the tests involving
gravel, whereas for other tests a uniform gradation obtained
by washing and sieving the original gravel was used. Washed
gravel was obtained by sieving the original gravel through
a No. 4 U.S. standard sieve and then washing on a No. 16
U.S. standard sieve. The portion retained on the No. 16 sieve
For personal use only.
was then over-dried before being used for testing.
Specimens of geomembrane and geotextile to suit the con-
figuration of the ring shear apparatus were obtained by
pressing against an annular carbon steel cutter.
Test equipment
The test equipment used for this investigation was the
U.B.C. ring shear apparatus (Bosdet 1980). The apparatus
is similar to that described by Bishop et al. (1971). It accom-
modates annular samples of 44.5 and 70 mm inner and outer
radius, respectively. Sample heights can be up to 30 mm.
Test samples are retained within upper and lower rings such
that the sample mid-height is approximately positioned at
the separation of the rings (Fig. 2a). To allow particles to
rearrange in the zone of shearing without interference from
the shear transfer radial ribs, maximum particle sizes are
generally limited to less than the height of rib penetration
into the sample. Soil thickness retained in each of the top
and bottom rings is not less than two maximum grain
diameters.
For the geometry of the U.B.C. ring shear samples, the
shear displacement of elements adjacent to the inner circum-
ference would be 63.6% of the shear displacements of ele-
ments adjacent to the outer circumference of the annular
sample. This would lead to a slight underestimation of peak
friction values. However, assessment of large strain or
residual friction parameters would not be affected by the
presence of such strain gradients, which are inherent to all
ring shear devices.
Test program and procedure
The test program followed in this investigation is outlined
in Table 1. Four single-stage tests were made at different
stress levels on angular concrete sand bedding, 80 mil
(2.03 mm) HPDE geomembrane, and angular gravel cover
composite interfaces (Fig. 2b). This represents double-
interface conditions wherein shear displacement can occur
GEOTECH. J. VOL. 26, 1989
one
10 -2
Steel
Ring ......
......
Geomembrone
FIG. 2. Schematic diagram of the ring shear apparatus and of
the shearing interfaces.
on either side of the geomembrane. The concrete sand was
poured and levelled by low-vacuum suction from a controlled
height to within the cutting edge of the lower ring. Geo-
membrane was placed on the prepared surface over which
gravel was poured and levelled within the upper confining
ring. The top of gravel was covered with a layer of sand
to be penetrated by radial ribs for the transfer of shear.
Uniform gravel was used in three tests and well-graded
gravel was used in the fourth test as interface materials. The
objective in these test series was to evaluate variation of peak
and residual interface resistance with stress level and gradation
of gravel. In a fifth but multistage test, a similar composite
interface was used except that the 80 mil (2.03 mm)
geomembrane was replaced by a 40 mil (1.02 mm) geomem-
brane. In a multistage test, shearing until a residual state
is reached under a given normal stress level is followed by
increasing the normal stress to a new higher value and
recommencing shearing until a residual stage is reached once
again. This test was made t o evaluate the possible influence
of membrane thickness ondilatancy effects at the interface
and hence on interface friction.
Three additional multistage tests were performed on single
interfaces consisting of geomembranes - Ottawa sand
(ASTM-C-109) (Fig. 2d) and geomembrane-geotextile in dry
and saturated states (Fig. 2c). For these test series, the
geomembrane was glued to a modified ring shear base with
the top surface flush with the ring edge. Ottawa sand was
placed directly over the geomembrane surface and within
the top ring. For geomembrane-geotextile interface, geo-
textile was glued to a modified tap platten. These tests were
performed to investigate interfacefriction resistance between
geomembranes and sand with rounded particles and between
 NOTES

TABLE1. Test program

Stress or Sample
stress range,
Test Type kPa Base Middle TOP
Single Concrete sand Geomembrane Uniform gravel
stage (Earl's Creek) (80 mil)
(dry)
Single Concrete sand Geomembrane Well-graded
stage (Earl's Creek) (80 mil) gravel
(dry)
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

Single Concrete sand Geomembrane Uniform gravel

stage (Earl's Creek) (80 mil)
(dry)
Single Concrete sand Geomembrane Uniform gravel
stage (Earl's Creek) (80 mil)
(dry)
Multistage Concrete sand Geomembrane Well-graded
(dry) (Earl's Creek) (40 mil) gravel
Multistage Geomembrane - Geotextile
(dry) (60 mil) (Texel 7612)
Multistage Geomembrane Geotextile
(saturated) (60 mil) (Texel 7612)
Multistage Geomembrane Ottawa sand
(dry) (60 mil) (ASTM-C-109)
NOTE:40 mil geomembrane is equivalent to approximately 1.02 mm thickness; 60 mil to approximately
1.52 mm; 80 mil to approximately 2.03 mm.
For personal use only.

TABLE2. Interface friction angles

Normal Peak Residual

stress, friction friction
Interface kPa angle, deg angle, deg
Single stage
Sand - geomembrane (80 mil) - 50
gravel (dry) 100
250
400

Multistage
Sand - geomembrane (40 mil) - 50
gravel (dry) 100
250
400
800

Geomembrane (60 mil) -

geotextile (Texel 7612) (dry)
Geomembrane (60 mil) -
geotextile (Texel 7612) (saturated)
Geomembrane (60 mil) -
Ottawa sand (ASTM-C-109)
NO%: 40 mil geomembrane is equivalent to approximately 1.02 mm thickness; 60 mil to gpproximately
1.52 mm; 80 mil to approximately 2.03 mm.

geomembranes and geotextiles under dry and saturated
conditions.
Test results
'
The results of the ring shear test program are summarized
in Table 2. Individual test results are presented in Fig. 3
showing mobilized friction angle against shear displacement.
Because the shear displacement varies radially across the
sample, shear displacement shown corresponds to that at
Earl's Creek concrete sand - geomembrane - gravel
In all of the tests on 80 mil (2.03 mm) geomembrane,
relative displacement took place only between the liner and
the concrete sand interface. Indentations at sharp points of
contacts were evident on the gravel side, whereas on the sand
side concentric tracks resulting frpmiiiscourdue to relative
evident. -
- -
shear movement between the sand and geomembrane were

mid-radius of the annular specimen. The results of single-stage ring shear tests (tests 1-4) on
 168 CAN. GEOTECH. J. VOL. 26, 1989

U = 5 0 kPa

30
Sand - Geomem. - Uniform Gravel
I Sand - Geomem. - Well-Graded Gravel
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14

0 0 50 100 150 200

0 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 0

SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm

U = 2 5 0 kPa U = 4 0 0 kPa
m
a, Sand - Geomem. - Uniform Gravel Sand - Geomem. - Uniform Gravel
30
W
_1
C3
5 20 -'--+ma* ocooBDO- 0 OO%,@

t 4
For personal use only.

0 1 I I I 0 I I I I
0 50 100 150 200 250 0 50 100 150 200 250
SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm SHEAR DISPLACEMENT, mm
FIG. 3. Mobilized interface friction angle vs. shear displacement for concrete sand - geomembrane (80 mil (2.03 mm)) - dry gravel.

PEAK 4 0 mil GEOMEMBRANE OTTAWA SAND-GEOMEMBRANE (DRY) o

PEAK 180 mil GEOMEMBRANE]
RESIDUAL (40 mil GEOMEMBRANE)
RESIDUAL (80 mil GEOMEMBRANE)
~ 3 0 1
1--
0
Z -
a o

9
z20-
I-
8 . 0 0 0
0 -
r
Y
G
10 I I I I o l , l ~ l ~ i ! , ~ l
0 200 300 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1
NORMAL STRESS, k P a N O R M A L STRESS, k P a
FIG. 4. Residual and peak composite interface friction angles FIG. 5. Residual interface friction angle vs. normal stress for
vs. normal stress for dry concrete sand - geomembrane - dry gravel. Ottawa sand - geomembrane and geotextile - geomembrane
interfaces.
layers of concrete sand, HDPE 80 mil (2.03 mm) geomem-
brane, and gravel are presented in Figs. 3a-3d. A peak This is because shear resistance is governed by the weaker
friction angle of 24-28" is indicated to be reached before sand rather than gravel membrane interface. There were no
a residual value of about 19' is attained. This peak friction detectable changes in gradation of either the sand or gravel
angle may be a manifestation of a dilatant soil behaviour as a result of shearing. *
at the interface and may be also due to shear resistance to A multistage test -(test 5) carried out with Earl's Creek
initiation of scour. Peak and residual friction angles sand - 40 mil (1.02 mm) geomembrane - gravel interface
determined for each test are plotted against normal stress showed behaviour very similar to tests with 80 mi1 (2.03 mm)
in Fig. 4. Residual friction angle values appear to be inde- geomembrane. The residual friction angle was essentially the
pendent of stress level. However, the peak friction angle same as the one observed with the 80 mil (2.03 mm) geomem-
shows generally a slight increase with stress level, possibly brane (Fig. 4). Inspection of the geomembrane after testing
because of deeper scour at higher stress levels. Nevertheless, showed much sharper indentations on the gravel side and
both peak and residual friction interface angles are smaller clear evidence of sliding betweenJhe sand and the geomem-
than the residual friction angle of 33" for Earl's Creek sand. brane interface. Use of a thinnergeomembrane did not result
There is no apparent difference in interface friction angles in higher peak friction angle&owigg to possibly more
from the use of either well-graded gravel or uniform gravel. dilatancy at the interface. This might have been expected
 NOTES
because a thinner membrane would undergo larger out-of-
plane deformation under equivalent normal stresses. Thus,
peak interface resistance appears to develop primarily from
initial scour resistance. Peak friction angle in the multistage
test is shown in Fig. 4 only for the first-stage shear loading
under 50 kPa. It is felt that subsequent peaks might be
influenced because of prior shearing to large displacements.
Thus, no peak data are shown for stresses in excess of 50 kPa.
Geomembrane-geotextile
No noticeable peak was observed in the shear stress
Can. Geotech. J. Downloaded from www.nrcresearchpress.com by University of Queensland on 11/23/14
displacement data for geomembrane-geotextile interface
sliding. This is possibly because the shearing process did not
indent or scour the geomembrane surface. The presence of
pore water apparently did not have influence on the inter-
face behaviour. An average friction angle of about 6.5" was
observed for the interface friction between geomembrane
and geotextile for both dry and saturated states. This value
was also approximately independent of stress level for the
range of stresses 50-1000 kPa (Fig. 5).
Geomembrane - Ottawa sand
Peak and residual interface friction angles between
geomembrane and Ottawa sand were 17.6 and 15" respecti-
vely compared with residual friction angle of 30.5" for
Ottawa sand. Relative displacements were taking place at
the sand-geomembrane interface. This was evident by the
For personal use only.
presence of concentric tracks engraved on the geomembrane.
No crushing of Ottawa sand was observed. Stress level had
little influence on the friction angle between the two
materials (Fig. 5).
Concluding remarks
The experimental study shows that during interface sliding
between granular materials and geomembranes, peak and
residual strength values are mobilized. Differences between
peak and residual interface angles increased with angularity
169
of sand at the sliding surface. Sliding along a geomembrane-
geotextile interface did not result in a detectable peak.
Because of nonuniformity in shear displacement radially
across the sample, peak resistance tends to be under-
estimated in a ring shear device. The observed sliding resis-
tances represent states of kinetic friction that would be less
than initial static friction conditions. True peak resistances
would therefore be expected to be higher than observed.
Peak interface resistances appear to have developed more
from resistance to scouring than from dilatancy. Significant
differences were observed between peak and residual interface
friction angles for geomembrane and angular sand inter-
faces. Thus, in some cases, application of conventional safety
factors to residual interface parameters can result in design
that may be too conservative.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by a grant from the Natural
Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada.
Assistance of Kelly Lamb in the preparation of the
manuscript and of Fred Zurkirchen with test equipment
modifications is gratefully acknowledged.
BISHOP, A.W., GREEN, G.E., GARGA, V.K., ANDERSON, A., and
BROWN, J.D. 1971. A new ring shear apparatus and its applica-
tion to the measurement of residual strength. GCotechnique, 21:
273-328.
BOSDET, B.W. 1980. The U.B.C. ring shear device. M.A.Sc. thesis,
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, B.C.
MARTIN,J.P., KOERNER, R.M., and WHITTY,J.E. 1984.
Experimental friction evaluation of slippage between geomem-
branes, geotextiles and soils. Proceedings, International
Conference on Geomembranes, Denver, CO, pp. 191-196.
SAXENA, S.K., and WONG,Y.T. 1984. Friction characteristics
of a geomembrane. Proceedings, International Conference on
Geomembranes, Denver, CO, pp. 187-190.