Thermomechanical Behavior of Saturated

Geosynthetic Clay Liners

Hossam M. Abuel-Naga1 and Abdelmalek Bouazza2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abstract: The aim of this study is to assess experimentally the volume change behavior of geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) under elevated
temperatures. Such elevated temperatures can be generated in landfills as the result of biological decomposition of organic matter in municipal
solid waste. A modified consolidometer capable of handling temperatures up to 60°C was utilized for this purpose. A series of thermomechanical
consolidation tests were performed on two different GCLs at different elevated temperatures, varying from 20 to 60°C, and different vertical
stress levels (50, 100, and 150 kPa). The results show that the thermally induced volume change is stress dependent. A preliminary conceptual
explanation for this behavior is introduced and discussed in this study. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0000799. © 2013 American
Society of Civil Engineers.
CE Database subject headings: Landfills; Temperature effects; Soil consolidation; Hydraulic conductivity; Clay liners; Geosynthetics;
Thermal factors; Mechanical properties.
Author keywords: Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL); Landfill; Temperature; Consolidation; Hydraulic conductivity.

Introduction Heat generated in landfills, as the result of the biological de-

Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are thin manufactured hydraulic
barriers comprised of a layer of bentonite bonded to layers of geo-
textiles and/or geomembranes. A typical GCL thickness varies
between 5 and 10 mm. The primary differences between GCLs are
the mineralogy and form of bentonite (e.g., natural sodium versus
sodium-activated calcium bentonite, powder versus granular forms,
etc.) used in the GCL, the type of geotextile (e.g., woven versus
nonwoven geotextiles), the addition of a geomembrane, and the
reinforcement methods.
Over the past two decades, GCLs have become integral com-
ponents of modern municipal solid waste landfill lining systems.
They are increasingly used as an alternative to compacted clays in
cover and bottom lining systems of waste containment facilities
because they often have very low hydraulic conductivity to water
(, 10 3 10210 m/s) and because of their relatively low cost and ease
of installation. As a result, they have been subjected to considerable
research, pertaining especially to their hydraulic and diffusion
properties, chemical compatibility, mechanical behavior, durability,
and gas migration (Bouazza 2002; Bouazza et al. 2006, 2008;
Bouazza and Rahman 2007; McCartney et al. 2009; Gassner 2009;
Guyonnet et al. 2009; Abuel-Naga and Bouazza 2009, 2010; Gates
et al. 2009; Benson et al. 2010a, b; Shackelford et al. 2010; Gates and
Bouazza 2010; Bouazza and Bowders 2010; Rowe et al. 2010;
Scalia and Benson 2011; Rayhani et al. 2011).
composition of waste, has been identified as a factor that can impact
the service life of liners, including geosynthetic clay liners (Rowe
2005; Southen and Rowe 2005). The available data indicate that
landfill liner temperatures can be expected to reach up to 60°C
under normal landfill operations (Yesiller et al. 2005; Rowe 2005;
Koerner and Koerner 2006; Bouazza et al. 2011). Even higher
temperatures, up to 70°C, may occur at the base of landfills if there
is a significant leachate mound within the landfill (Yoshida et al.
1996). These results highlight the fact that GCLs, if used as part of
landfill barrier systems, may be subjected to high temperature
variations and thermal gradients that may impact their long-term
hydro-mechanical performance. Therefore, an understanding of the
coupled thermomechanical behavior of GCLs is required for ef-
fective and safe design of landfill liner systems.
The objective of this study was to examine the effects of
thermal loading on the volume change of GCLs. For this purpose,
a modified consolidometer capable of applying temperatures up
to 60°C was utilized to test two different GCLs. The metho-
dology, procedures, and analysis are presented with the aim of
advancing our understanding of key variables and processes
influencing the volume change behavior GCLs at elevated
temperatures.
Tested Material and Specimen Preparation

Two different types of GCLs, referred to as GCL 1 and GCL 2,

1
Senior Lecturer, Dept. of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ.
of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland 1142, New Zealand (corre-
sponding author). E-mail: h.naga@auckland.ac.nz
2
Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Monash Univ., Melbourne, VIC
3800, Australia. E-mail: malek.bouazza@monash.edu
Note. This manuscript was submitted on March 30, 2011; approved on
June 22, 2012; published online on August 1, 2012. Discussion period open
until September 1, 2013; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Geotechnical and
Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 139, No. 4, April 1, 2013. ©ASCE,
ISSN 1090-0241/2013/4-539–547/$25.00.
were investigated in this study. Their properties are listed in
Table 1. The moisture absorption test [DIN 18132; Deutsches
Institut Fur Normung E.V. (DIN) 1995] was used to assess in-
directly the difference in the surface area between the bentonite
component of GCL 1 and GCL 2. The moisture absorption test
procedure requires the placement of 1 g of dried bentonite on
a glass filter within a cylinder. The cylinder is funneled into
a graduated capillary tube filled with water. The bentonite absorbs
the water through the filter, causing a reduction of the water
level in the tube. The change in water volume after 24 h and the

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 539

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.

 corresponding weight of water is recorded as a percentage of the
original weight of bentonite. The result of this test is defined by an
Enslin-Neff value (EN) as follows:
absorbed water weight at 24 h
EN ¼  100
Dry bentonite weight
The results of the moisture absorption test (DIN 18132) show that
EN values are similar for the bentonites from GCL 1 and GCL 2, as
listed in Table 1. Consequently, we can consider that their surface
areas are roughly similar, as they absorbed similar amounts of
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
a water tank, and a thermocontroller unit with an accuracy 60.1°C,
as depicted in Fig. 1(a). The temperature of the GCL specimen
undergoing consolidation is increased indirectly by heating the
water in the annular space between the outer ring of the oedometer
and the specimen ring. The thermocouple was placed in the
ð1Þ
oedometer annulus space to avoid specimen disturbance and was
used for temperature measurements and to provide the feedback
signal for the thermocontroller unit. The water tank was used to
compensate for the evaporated water from the oedometer cell. A
calibration test with two thermocouples placed in the oedometer
annulus space and in the center of the test specimen showed that the

water.
GCL specimens were cut from larger GCL sheets, using a sharp
utility knife, to A4 size paper. A circular stainless steel cutting ring
with an inner diameter of 76 mm was used to cut the GCL speci-
mens. Each GCL specimen was placed between a cutting ring and
plywood, which was used as a cutting base. The GCL was then
placed on the platen of a compression machine for cutting. To
achieve an effective cut, a force of e15e20 kN was applied. The
cutting ring containing a GCL specimen was weighed to determine
the mass per unit area. The initial unhydrated GCL height was
measured under an applied normal stress of e2 kPa using a high-
gauge vernier. The GCL was then gently pushed from the cutting
ring directly into the consolidometer ring. A plastic disc with
a diameter slightly smaller than the inner diameter of the ring was
used to support the GCL during extraction from the cutting ring.
Care was taken not to lose any bentonite from the outer edge of the
GCL sample.
time to attain the required temperature (i.e., the temperature of the
water being maintained in the annulus) at the center of the GCL
specimen undergoing consolidation was e20 min. Furthermore, the
thermal gradient between the water being maintained in the annulus
space and the center of the test specimen was less than 1°C. The
average thermal vertical deformation of the oedometer based on three
heating/cooling cycles is shown in Fig. 1(b). Vertical deformation
was measured using a LVDT. These measurements were made where
the top cap of the oedometer was directly placed over the saturated
porous stone discs. The results show almost reversible expansion of
the oedometer after having been subjected to heating/cooling cycles.
The calibration results were used to correct the measured readings
under nonisothermal conditions during actual tests.

Test Apparatus

A conventional oedometer apparatus was modified to include a ring

heater attached to the outer oedometer ring, a K-type thermocouple,

Table 1. Properties of Tested Material

Property GCL 1 GCL 2
GCL mass per unit 5.0–5.5 6.0–6.4
area (kg/m2)
As-received GCL 8–9 5–6
thickness (mm)
Mineral composition 90% smectite, 88% smectite,
of bentonite 4% cristobalite, 7% anorthite,
3% quartz, 3% quartz,
3% Ca-albite 2% calcite
Atterberg limits LL 5 405% LL 5 540%
PI 5 351% PI 5 502%
Bentonite form Powder Granular
Density of the bentonite 940–1,175 1,567–1,757
layer (kg/m3)
Bentonite mass per unit 4.7 5.8
area (kg/m2)
Thickness of bentonite 4.0–5.0 3.3–3.7
layer (mm)
Cover geotextile type; Nonwoven Slit-film woven
mass per unit area (kg/m2) polypropylene; 0.27 geotextile; 0.15
Carrier geotextile; Nonwoven geotextile Nonwoven
mass per unit area (kg/m2) reinforced by a woven polypropylene
geotextile; 0.38 geotextile; 0.30
Bonding method Needle-punched Needle-punched
fibers, heat bonded fibers Fig. 1. Test apparatus: (a) modified consolidometer test apparatus
Swelling pressure (kPa) 175 101 (not to scale); (b) thermal vertical displacement of the modified
Enslin-Neff value (%) 715 715 consolidometer

540 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.

 The lateral thermal expansion of the stainless steel oedometer
ring could affect the accuracy of the one dimension test condition
and consequently the thermally induced volume change mea-
surements. To evaluate the error induced by this process, a constant
volume assumption was used where the diametrical expansion can
be related to an equivalent vertical deformation change, as follows:
 
DhðDTÞ DdðDTÞ
¼ 22 ¼ 22ae DT ð2Þ
ho do
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

where DhðDTÞ 5 vertical deformation of test specimen as a result of

the change in oedometer ring diameter DdðDTÞ at temperature
change DT; ho and do 5 height of test specimen and oedometer ring
diameter at room temperature (do 5 75 mm), respectively; and ae 5
diametrical thermal expansion coefficient of the oedometer ring.
Abuel-Naga et al. (2006) reported that for a stainless steel ring,
ae 5 1:637 3 1025 °C21 .
According to Burghignoli et al. (1995), the thermally induced
volumetric strain error generated by the lateral thermal deflections
of an oedometer cell during heating, Dɛ T , can be calculated by taking
into account the effect of the thermal expansion of clay particles, as
follows:
 
ðDhðDTÞ=ho Þ 2 as DT
Dɛ T ¼ ð3Þ
1 þ as DT
where as 5 coefficient of volumetric thermal expansion of clay
particles (as 5 3:5 3 1025 °C21 , from Campanella and Mitchell
1968). Substituting the vertical strain induced by the thermal ex-
pansion of the oedometer ring, determined using Eq. (2), into Eq. (3)
(for typical values relevant to this study: DT 5 40°C) yields
Dɛ T 5 29:02 3 1025 , which is very insignificant and therefore can
be neglected. A similar conclusion was reported by Towhata et al.
(1995) and Romero et al. (2003) for their nonisothermal oedometric
consolidation tests.
Experimental Program
The experimental program involved measuring the thermally in-
duced volume change of 75-mm-diameter GCL specimens at dif-
ferent vertical pressures (50, 100, and 150 kPa) under changing
temperatures (20 to 60 to 20°C). An incremental, drained heating/
cooling approach was adopted (Towhata et al. 1993; Delage et al.
2000; Abuel-Naga et al. 2006). This approach involves raising/
decreasing the temperature incrementally (10°C) once the volume
change is stabilized. It is to be noted that this study only investigates
the thermomechanical behavior of water (deaired) saturated GCLs.
However, it should be mentioned that the effect of temperature on
the behavior of GCLs in contact with leachate could be different as it
involves a chemo-thermomechanical (CTM) multicoupled process.
The experimental testing program for GCL 1 and GCL 2 is
depicted in Fig. 2. After installing the dry GCL specimen in the
oedometer ring, a vertical stress of 50 kPa was applied to it, and its
vertical displacement was monitored until it stabilized. Then, the
GCL specimen was hydrated under 50-kPa vertical stress by filling
the annular space between the oedometer outer and inner ring with
distilled deaired water. The hydration heave of the GCL specimen
was observed until equilibrium was achieved, i.e., when the change
in heave was less than 0.005 mm over a 24-h period. At the end of
the hydration stage, the GCL specimen was subjected to the des-
ignated vertical consolidation pressures and temperatures, as shown
in Fig. 2. The heating phase of a GCL specimen was started after
Fig. 2. Experimental program
finishing the mechanical consolidation stage. Vertical deformation
readings were recorded during the heating and cooling phase. To
confirm the observed volume change behavior under the elevated
temperatures, duplicate GCL specimens of each GCL type (GCL 1,
GCL 2) were tested.
Test Results and Discussion
The heave of GCL specimens (GCL 1, GCL 2) during the hydration
process under 50 kPa vertical stress is shown in Fig. 3. The
observed slight difference in the heave behavior of the two identical
specimens of each GCL type (GCL 1, GCL 2) can be attributed to the
possible difference in the density and initial moisture content of the
bentonite component. The results show that GCL 2 had a higher
swelling capacity than GCL 1. The average heave strains of GCL 1
and GCL 2 specimens are 12.5 and 29.3%, respectively. Because
the bentonite clay mineralogy of GCL 1 and GCL 2 are almost
similar, as listed in Table 1, the difference in their swelling capacity
can be attributed to the difference in density among the bentonite layers,
as GCL 2 has a higher initial density, as listed in Table 1. However, it
should also be mentioned that any possible difference in the density
of the needle-punched fibers could affect the swelling capacity of
GCLs (Petrov et al. 1997; Lake and Rowe 2000; Fratalocchi 2005).
Typical results for thermal consolidation corrected for the tem-
perature effect on the testing apparatus are shown in Fig. 4. The ob-
served initial expansion behavior could be attributed to the thermal
expansion of the apparatus that controls the early time results, as the
thermally induced volume change of the test apparatus parts (metal)
reaches thermal equilibrium faster than the GCL specimen.
Fig. 5 shows the thickness changes of the tested GCL specimens
under the conduced thermomechanical consolidation path. The
results indicate that two identical specimens from each GCL type
used in this study (GCL 1, GCL 2) have similar thickness change
modes (expansion or contraction) but different thickness change
magnitudes under the imposed thermomechanical consolidation
path. The differences in thickness change magnitudes could be
related to the manufacture quality control of the GCL (mass per area,
density in needle punching, etc.). Fig. 6 depicts the thermally
induced volumetric strains of GCL 1 and GCL 2 specimens, re-
spectively, under different vertical stress levels. Fig. 6(a) indicates
that GCL 1 specimens undergo irreversible thermally induced
volumetric contraction upon subjection to a heating/cooling cycle
(20 to 60 to 20°C). Generally, during each heating increment,
the specimen was observed to contract more with increasing
temperature. Further, additional contractile strain was observed
during cooling. Moreover, the magnitude of the irreversible
thermally induced volumetric contraction strain, upon subjection

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 541

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 3. Swelling behavior of tested GCL specimens under 50-kPa
vertical stress, where Ho and Hf are the initial and final thickness of
GCL specimen, respectively: (a) GCL 1; (b) GCL 2
to a heating/cooling cycle, increases as the vertical stress level
increases.
The test results of GCL 2 under vertical stresses of 100 and 150
kPa are shown in Fig. 6(b). The results look similar to the observed
behavior of GCL 1 specimens shown in Fig. 6(a). The specimens
show irreversible thermally induced volumetric contraction upon
subjection to a heating/cooling cycle. However, under 50 kPa
vertical stress, the GCL 2 specimens show irreversible thermal
volumetric expansion, as illustrated in Fig. 6(b). Based on the
results shown in Fig. 6, it can be concluded that the magnitude and
mode (expansion/contraction) of the thermally induced volume
change of GCL is dependent on the level of stress applied.
Conceptual Explanation for the Temperature Effect
on Volume Change Behavior of GCL
Thermomechanical models that are able to reproduce most of the
observed volume change behavior of saturated clays at increased
temperatures have been developed by several researchers (Hueckel
and Borsetto 1990; Cui et al. 2000; Laloui and Cekerevac 2003;
Abuel-Naga et al. 2007); however, these models cannot be used for
GCLs, as they do not incorporate the influences of layered geo-
materials. The volume change behavior of GCLs depends on the
542 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.
Fig. 4. Typical thermal consolidation test results; GCL 1 (1) specimen
engineering properties of the bentonite and geotextile components
of the GCL as well as on the composite structure configuration, in
particular, the properties of the reinforcement fibers (Petrov et al.
1997; Fratalocchi 2005). However, under a constant vertical stress, it
can be assumed that subjecting the GCL to a heating/cooling cycle
will induce a very small and insignificant change in the thickness
of the GCL geotextile layers. Therefore, the thermally induced
thickness change of the hydrated GCL is assumed to be attributed
mainly to a change in the thickness of the GCL bentonite layer.
At volume equilibrium, the GCL bentonite layer is subjected to
a net stress (snet ), which is the resultant of three stress components,
namely, the applied vertical stress (sv ), the swelling pressure of
the bentonite (Pbent
s ), and the mobilized restricted pressure induced by
the reinforcing fibers of GCL (sf ), as depicted in Fig. 7. However, it
should be mentioned that the role of the reinforcing fibers (sf ) will
not be active if the applied vertical stress is greater than the swelling
pressure of bentonite. Therefore, the thermally induced volume
change of GCL under constant applied vertical stress (sv ) could
be conceptually explained by considering the temperature effects on
sf and Pbent
s . Thus, during heating, if the net stress (snet ) increases,
the GCL will contract, and if it decreases, the GCL will expand.
To the authors’ knowledge, no direct published information is
available regarding the temperature effect on the engineering
properties of the reinforcing fibers of GCLs. However, based on the
experimental results reported by Thomas (2002), it could be in-
directly concluded that the fibers would expand irreversibly under
heating conditions. Furthermore, similar conclusions can also be
obtained from the concept of the stepped isothermal method used to
test the creep behavior of geotextiles using time-temperature su-
perposition methods (Zornberg et al. 2004). Therefore, if sf is
active, it will decrease irreversibly as the temperature increases.
Several studies have shown that the swelling pressure of different
clays decreases as temperature increases (Karnland et al. 1994;
Lingnau et al. 1996; Romero et al. 2003; Villar and Lloret 2004;
Villar et al. 2010). This behavior was explained in light of the
thermally induced lattice contraction caused by dehydration of the
interlamellar space (Pusch et al. 1990). This contraction can lead to
irreversible aggregation of particles that may decrease the specific
surface area and consequently irreversibly reduce the swelling
capacity (Al-Homoud et al. 1995).
Therefore, in summary, the proposed explanation for the ob-
served thermally induced volume change behavior of GCLs
reported in this study is based on two hypotheses. First, the bentonite
swelling pressure (Pbent
s ) has an irreversible temperature-dependent
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 5. GCL thickness change under dry loading, hydration, and mechanical and thermal consolidation
behavior: it decreases as the temperature increases. Second, the
mobilized restricted pressure (sf ) induced by the GCL bonding
fibers also has an irreversible temperature-dependent behavior; it
also decreases as the temperature increases.
The proposed conceptual explanation decomposes the thermally
induced volumetric strain, ɛ v , into two components, namely: a re-
versible component of strain, ɛ ev , and an irreversible component of
strain, ɛ pv . The reversible component can be explained in terms of the
mineral thermal expansion phenomena (Hueckel and Borsetto 1990;
Cui et al. 2000; Laloui and Cekerevac 2003; Abuel-Naga et al. 2007),
whereas the irreversible component can be attributed to the tem-
perature effect on both sf , and Pbent
s . In the following sections, two main
stress cases that control the thermally induced volume change behavior
of GCLs will be explained; then, the observed experimental results of
GCL 1 and GCL 2 will be discussed in light of these two main stress cases.
Case 1: sv > P bent
s
Under this condition, sf is not active. Therefore, as the temperature
increases from To to T1 under constant sv , Pbent
s will decrease and
snet will increase, as depicted in Fig. 8(a) on the left-hand side.
Consequently, an irreversible contraction volume change, ɛ pv , will be
induced, as shown in Fig. 8(a) on the right-hand side. Moreover,
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 543
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.
a reversible expansion volume change, ɛ ev , will also be generated as
the result of mineral thermal expansion behavior, as shown in Fig. 8(a)
on the right-hand side. The magnitude of the irreversible, thermally
induced volume change is a function of the applied vertical stress, as it
controls the value of Pbent bent
s , and the rate of Ps changes with tem-
perature (Villar et al. 2010).
Case 2: sv < P bent
s
Under this condition, sf is active. Therefore, upon heating, in addition
to mineral thermal reversible expansion behavior, both sf and Pbents will
decrease, and an irreversible volume change could be expected. In fact,
under this condition, the magnitude and the mode (expansion/
contraction) of the thermally induced volume change could be con-
trolled by the relation between the rate at which sf and Pbent
s change with
temperature. Therefore, three subcases can be considered, as follows:
   
∂Ps bent  ∂sf 
Case 2a:    5  
∂T   ∂T 
In this case,Pthe temperature effect on sf and Pbent s is equal. Con-
sequently, s stays constant until sf becomes equal to zero at
T 5 Tf , as shown in Fig. 8(b) on the left-hand side. Within this
temperature range (To to Tf ), only reversible expansion volume
change as the result of mineral thermal expansion behavior is
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 6. Thermally induced volumetric strain under different vertical stress levels: (a) GCL 1; (b) GCL 2

Fig. 7. GCL stress system

544 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Fig. 8. Qualitative conceptual explanation for temperature effect on GCL volume change: (a) Case 1; (b) Cases 2a and 2c; (c) Case 2b

   
∂Ps bent  ∂sf 
expected, as shown in Fig. 8(b) on the right-hand side. Beyond this 
Case 2b:   <  
temperature range, sf will not be active, and snet will increase as the ∂T   ∂T 
result of the decrease in Pbent
s as temperature increases, as depicted in In this case, because the temperature has more of an effect on sf than
Fig. 8(b) on the left-hand side. Consequently, an irreversible contraction s , snet will decrease, as shown in Fig. 8(c) on the left-hand
on Pbent
volume change can occur, as shown in Fig. 8(b) on the right-hand side. side. Therefore, under a heating path, an irreversible expansion

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 545

J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.

 volume change, in addition to the reversible expansion volume
change, as the result of mineral thermal expansion behavior can
occur, as shown in Fig. 8(c) on the right-hand side.
    thermally induced volume change of GCLs measured experimen-
∂Ps bent  ∂sf 
Case 2c:   >   tally in a temperature-controlled oedometer. Although the basis
∂T   ∂T 
Because sf is mobilized by Pbent
s , and the temperature has more effect
s , the change in sf as temperature increases will be equal to
on Pbent
the change in Pbent
s as temperature increases. Therefore, this case is
similar to Case 2a, as shown in Fig. 8(b).
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Behavior of GCL 1 and GCL 2
Upon hydrating the GCL specimens under sv 5 50 kPa vertical
stress, sf will be activated as the GCL specimens swell. At the
hydration equilibrium, the value of sf will be equal to the diff-
erence between Pbent s and sv ; therefore, Pbent
s . sv . However, it
should be mentioned that the value Pbents at this condition is less than
the GCL swelling pressure under the constant volume condition
listed in Table 1. As Pbents . sv , subjecting this hydrated GCL
specimens to a heating/cooling cycle should generate a thermally
induced volume change pattern similar to one of the subcases of
Case 2. In fact, the thermally induced volume change results of
GCL 1 and GCL 2 under sv 5 50 kPa, as shown in Fig. 6, confirm
the validity of this explanation, as the results of GCL 1 follows Case
2a, whereas the results of GCL 2 follows Case 2b. The difference
between Cases 2a and 2b can be attributed to the difference in the
reduction rate of Pbents and sf as the temperature increases, as
explained earlier.
After subjecting the GCL specimens under sv 5 50 kPa to
a heating/cooling cycle, the value of Pbent s decreases irreversibly.
However, upon increasing the vertical stress from 50 to 100 kPa at
ambient temperature, in accord with the experimental program
shown in Fig. 2, the value of Pbent
s will increase as the bentonite dry
density increases. Nevertheless, the new value of Pbents is expected to
be less than the applied vertical stress (sv 5 100 kPa). Therefore, as
Pbent
s , sv , the thermally induced volume change behavior of the
GCL specimens should follow the pattern of Case 1, in which ir-
reversible, thermally induced volume change is expected. The ex-
perimental results of GCL 1 and GCL 2, under sv 5 100 kPa
(Fig. 6), support this explanation.
Defined by the thermomechanical path shown in Fig. 2, at the
end of the heating/cooling cycle under sv 5 100 kPa the verti-
cal stress is increased from 100 to 150 kPa. As a result, Pbent s geosynthetics exhumed from a final cover at a solid waste landfill.”
also increases, but it is still less than the applied vertical stress
(sv 5 150 kPa). Therefore, the thermally induced volume change
pattern of Case 1 again is expected. The experimental results of
GCL 1 and GCL 2, under sv 5 150 kPa, shown in Fig. 6, also
support this explanation. The observed difference in the magni-
tude of the irreversible contraction thermally induced volume, at
sv 5 100 and 150 kPa, could be attributed to the increase in the
bentonite dry density as sv increases. Villar et al. (2010) found that,
upon heating, the reduction in the swelling pressure increases as the
clay dry density increases. Consequently, the heat will have more
influence on the swelling pressure, Pbent s , at sv 5 150 kPa, and
a larger contraction thermally induced volume change is expected,
as shown in Fig. 6.
Conclusions
A conceptual framework was proposed in this study to explain the
thermally induced volume changes of GCLs. The hypothesis of the
framework is that the thermally induced volume change of GCLs is
a function of three parameters: (1) the swelling pressure of bentonite,
546 / JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.
(2) the applied vertical pressure, and (3) the restricted swelling
pressure induced by the GCL bonding fibers. The conceptual
framework was found to provide a reasonable interpretation of the
of the conceptual framework is supported by experimental ob-
servations for bentonite clays, additional experimental evidence is
required to confirm the validity of the proposed concept and to
develop a quantitative model.
Acknowledgments
The current study was financially supported by a large grant from
the Australian Research Council. Our sincere appreciation is ex-
tended to the council. The anonymous reviewers made many con-
structive comments and valuable suggestions. These comments
and efforts associated with the review are greatly appreciated by
the authors.
References
Abuel-Naga, H. M., Bergado, D. T., Bouazza, A., and Ramana, G. V. (2007).
“Volume change behavior of saturated clays under drained heating
conditions: Experimental results and constitutive modeling.” Can.
Geotech. J., 44(8), 942–956.
Abuel-Naga, H. M., Bergado, D. T., Grino, L., Rujivipat, P., and Thet, Y.
(2006). “Experimental evaluation of engineering behavior of soft
Bangkok clay under elevated temperature.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 132(7), 902–910.
Abuel-Naga, H. M., and Bouazza, A. (2009). “Numerical characterization
of advective gas flow through GM\GCL composite liners having
a circular defect in the geomembrane.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng.,
135(11), 1661–1672.
Abuel-Naga, H. M., and Bouazza, A. (2010). “A novel laboratory technique
to determine the water retention curve of geosynthetic clay liners.”
Geosynth. Int., 17(5), 313–322.
Al-Homoud, A. S., Basma, A. A., Husein, M. A. I., and Al Bashabsheh,
M. A. (1995). “Cyclic swelling behavior of clays.” J. Geotech. Eng.,
121(7), 562–565.
Benson, C. H., Haken Oren, A., and Gates, W. P. (2010a). “Hydraulic
conductivity of two geosynthetic clay liners permeated with a hyper-
alkaline solution.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28(2), 206–218.
Benson, C. H., Kucukkirca, I. E., and Scalia, J. (2010b). “Properties of
Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28(6), 536–546.
Bouazza, A. (2002). “Geosynthetic clay liners.” Geotextiles Geomem-
branes, 20(1), 3–17.
Bouazza, A., and Bowders, J. J. (2010). Geosynthetic clay liners for waste
containment facilities, CRC Press/Balkema, Leiden, Netherlands.
Bouazza, A., Nahlawi, H., and Alyward, M. (2011). “In situ temperature
monitoring in an organic waste landfill cell.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 137(12), 1286–1289.
Bouazza, A., and Rahman, F. (2007). “Oxygen diffusion through partially
hydrated geosynthetic clay liners.” Geotechnique, 57(9), 767–772.
Bouazza, A., Vangpaisal, T., Abuel-Naga, H. M., and Kodikara, J. (2008).
“Analytical modelling of gas leakage rate through a geosynthetic clay
liner-geomembrane composite liner due to a circular defect in the
geomembrane.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 26(2), 122–129.
Bouazza, A., Vangpaisal, T., and Jefferis, S. (2006). “Effect of wet-dry
cycles and cation exchange on gas permeability of geosynthetic clay
liners.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 132(8), 1011–1018.
Burghignoli, A., Desideri, A., and Miliziano, S. (1995). “Discussion of
volume change of clays induced by heating as observed in consolida-
tion test.” Soil Found., 35(1), 122–124.
Campanella, R. G., and Mitchell, J. K. (1968). “Influence of temperature
variations on soil behavior.” J. Geotech. Eng. Div., 94(3), 709–734.
 Cui, Y. J., Sultan, N., and Delage, P. (2000). “A thermomechanical model
for saturated clays.” Can. Geotech. J., 37(3), 607–620.
Delage, P., Sultan, N., and Cui, Y. J. (2000). “On the thermal consolidation
of Boom Clay.” Can. Geotech. J., 37(2), 343–354.
Deutsches Institut Fur Normung E.V. (DIN). (1995). “Soil, testing proce-
dures and testing equipment––Determination of water absorption.”
DIN 18132, Berlin.
Fratalocchi, E. (2005). “Hydraulic performance of GCLs with different
stress history.” Int. Workshop on Hydro-Physico-Mechanics of Landfills,
Laboratoire Interdisciplinaire de Recherche Impliquant la Géologie et la
Mécanique, Univ. of Joseph Fourier, Grenoble, France.
Gassner, F. (2009). “Field observation of GCL shrinkage at a site in
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSITY OF TOWN OF SHENZHEN on 03/26/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Melbourne, Australia.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 27(5), 406–408.
Gates, W. P., and Bouazza, A. (2010). “Bentonite transformation in strongly
alkaline solutions.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28(2), 219–225.
Gates, W. P., Bouazza, A., and Churchman, J. G. (2009). “Bentonite clay
keeps pollutants at bay.” Elements, 5(2), 105–110.
Guyonnet, D., et al. (2009). “Performance based indicators for controlling
geosynthetic clay liners in landfill applications.” Geotextiles Geo-
membranes, 27(5), 321–331.
Hueckel, T., and Borsetto, M. (1990). “Thermoplasticity of saturated soils
and shales: Constitutive equations.” J. Geotech. Eng., 116(12), 1765–
1777.
Karnland, O., Pusch, R., and Sanden, T. (1994). “Buffer material charac-
terisation,” Rep. No. AR 94–60, SKB, Stockholm, Sweden (in Swedish).
Koerner, G. R., and Koerner, R. M. (2006). “Long term temperature
monitoring of geomembranes at dry and wet landfills.” Geotextiles
Geomembranes, 24(1), 72–77.
Lake, C. B., and Rowe, R. K. (2000). “Swelling characteristics of nee-
dlepunched, thermally treated geosynthetic clay liners.” Geotextiles
Geomembranes, 18(2–4), 77–101.
Laloui, L., and Cekerevac, C. (2003). “Thermo-plasticity of clays: An
isotropic yield mechanism.” Comput. Geotech., 30(8), 649–660.
Lingnau, B. E., Graham, J., Yarechewski, D., Tanaka, N. and Gray, M. N.
(1996). “Effects of temperature on strength and compressibility of
sand-bentonite buffer.” Eng. Geol., 41(1–4), 103–115.
McCartney, J. S., Zornberg, J. G., and Swan, R. H., Jr. (2009). “Analysis of
a large database of GCL-geomembrane interface shear strength results.”
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 135(2), 209–223.
Petrov, R. J., Rowe, R. K., and Quigley, R. M. (1997). “Selected factors
influencing GCL hydraulic conductivity.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron.
Eng., 123(8), 683–695.
Pusch, R., Karnland, O., and Hökmark, H. (1990). “GMM—A general mi-
crostructural model for qualitative and quantitative studies of smectite
clays.” SKB Technical Rep. TR 90-43, Stockholm, Sweden.
JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL AND GEOENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING © ASCE / APRIL 2013 / 547
J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng. 2013.139:539-547.
Rayhani, M. T., Rowe, R. K., Brachman, R. W. I., Take, W. A., and Siemens,
G. (2011). “Factors affecting GCL hydration under isothermal con-
ditions.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 29(6), 525–533.
Romero, E., Gens, A., and Lloret, A. (2003). “Suction effects on a
compacted clay under non-isothermal conditions.” Geotechnique, 53(1),
65–81.
Rowe, R. K. (2005). “Long term performance of contaminant barrier sys-
tems. 45th Rankine lecture.” Geotechnique, 55(9), 631–678.
Rowe, R. K., Bostwick, L., and Thiel, R. (2010). “Shrinkage characteristics
of heat-tacked GCL seams.” Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28(4), 352–
359.
Scalia, J., and Benson, C. H. (2011). “Hydraulic conductivity of geo-
synthetic clay liners exhumed from landfill final covers with composite
barriers.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 137(1), 1–13.
Shackelford, C., Sevick, G., and Eykholt, G. (2010). “Hydraulic conduc-
tivity of geosynthetic clay liners to tailings impoundment solutions.”
Geotextiles Geomembranes, 28(2), 149–162.
Southen, J. M., and Rowe, R. K. (2005). “Laboratory investigation of
geosynthetic clay liner desiccation in a composite liner subjected to
thermal gradients.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(7), 925–935.
Thomas, R. W. (2002). “Thermal oxidation of a polypropylene geotex-
tile used in a geosynthetic clay liner.” Clay Geosynthetic Barriers: Proc.,
Int. Symp. IS Nuremberg 2002, H. Zanzinger, R. M. Koener, and
E. Gartung, eds., Swets & Zeitlinger, Lisse, Netherlands, 87–96.
Towhata, I., Kuntiwattanakul, P., Seko, I., and Ohishi, K. (1993). “Volume
change of clays induced by heating as observed in consolidation tests.”
Soil Found., 33(4), 170–183.
Towhata, I., Kuntiwattanakul, P., Seko, I., and Ohishi, K. (1995). “Dis-
cussion of volume change of clays induced by heating as observed
in consolidation tests.” Soils Found., 35(1), 124–127.
Villar, M. V., Gómez-Espina, R., and Lloret, A. (2010). “Experimental
investigation into temperature effect on hydro-mechanical behaviors of
bentonite.” J. Rock Mech. Geotech. Eng., 2(1), 71–78.
Villar, M. V., and Lloret, A. (2004). “Influence of temperature on the
hydro-mechanical behavior of a compacted bentonite.” Appl. Clay Sci.,
26(1–4), 337–350.
Yesiller, N., Hanson, J. L., and Liu, W. L. (2005). “Heat generation in
municipal solid waste landfills.” J. Geotech. Geoenviron. Eng., 131(11),
1330–1344.
Yoshida, H., Hozumi, H., and Tanaka, N. (1996). “Theoretical study on
temperature distribution in a sanitary landfill.” Proc. 2nd Int. Congress
on Environmental Geotechnics, Osaka, Vol. 1, 323–328.
Zornberg, J. G., Byler, B. R., and Knudsen, J. W. (2004). “Creep of geo-
textiles using time–temperature superposition methods.” J. Geotech.
Geoenviron. Eng., 130(11), 1158–1168.