Geosynthetics: Leading the Way to a Resilient Planet – Biondi et al (eds)

© 2024 The Author(s), ISBN 978-1-003-38688-9

Open Access: www.taylorfrancis.com, CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

Influence of geosynthetic interface within a liner system in dynamic

analyses of a landfill

D. Gioffrè & C.G. Lai

Department of Civil Engineering and Architecture, University of Pavia, Italy

ABSTRACT: Geosynthetic composites are extensively used in liner systems which are
placed beneath the landfill to isolate waste material from the surrounding environment.
However, geosynthetics can also be the weak interface, so analyses of seismic response and
permanent deformation of landfill should be performed considering the influence of liner
interface. This paper investigates the contributing role of the base liner on the seismic
behavior of landfills. Based on the results of the site investigation, dynamic analyses of a
landfill in Northern Italy were carried out with the finite difference computational platform
FLAC-2D. The displacement of the geosynthetics resulting from the seismic loading was
estimated along with the potentially induced seismic slip surface taking place at the inter-
faces. Results indicate that the geosynthetic liner system affects the dynamic response of
landfill and that the seismic displacements on the geosynthetics should not be neglected. This
paper also discusses results and implications on seismic design of landfills to ensure the
integrity of the liner systems as well as the stability of the waste landfill.

1 INTRODUCTION

According to international codes and recommendations, the analysis of the seismic stability
conditions of a waste landfill could be conducted using one of the following types of analysis:
a) pseudo-static methods;
b) simplified dynamic methods (displacement-based);
c) advanced dynamic analysis methods.
Methods a) evaluate a global safety coefficient for the slope (landslide section) along a
predefined sliding surface and considering a statically applied seismic action in the center of
gravity in the unstable rigid body. The magnitude of the pseudo-static inertial force depends
on the peak acceleration value expected at the free surface at the study site and on the limit-
state considered (return period). Pseudo-static methods do not allow an evaluation of the
“performance” of the slope subjected to seismic shaking, a performance defined for example
by permanent displacement.
In methods b) and c) the seismic stability is evaluated by comparing the permanent dis-
placement with the admissible displacement defined by codes and recommendations.
Therefore, methods b) and c) are based on a performance approach to seismic design.
However, while method b) is based on an analysis in which the phases needed to define the
seismic input and calculate the permanent displacement are uncoupled (decoupled
approach), in method c) these phases are carried out jointly in the same numerical model
(coupled approach). Furthermore, in method b) the numerical model used for the evaluation
of the permanent displacements is typically carried out by means of a simplified approach
that idealizes an unstable rigid body moving on a predefined sliding surface (like in pseudo-
static methods).

DOI: 10.1201/9781003386889-148 1177

 In method c) the slope is idealized as a deformable body in which the sliding surface is not
defined a-priori but it emerges as a narrow zone of intense shearing strain (shear band)
during the analysis.
The simplified dynamic method (method b) is approximate and does not allow an accu-
rate evaluation of permanent displacements in the presence of complex geometric config-
urations such as the presence of berm or embankment along the slope, reinforcement
structures, and different types of materials separated by appropriate interfaces.
Furthermore, in systems with significant stiffness and strength differences, the evaluation
of permanent displacements requires a coupled approach to account for the dynamic inter-
action between resistance, deformability, interface and seismic action (Lai et al. 2009;
Rampello & Callisto 2008).
A liner system generally consists of one or more types of soil and/or geosynthetic materials
such as geomembranes, geosynthetic clay liners, geonets and geotextiles. The shear strength
of the liner system and the interface friction between the layers determine how susceptible the
slope is to lateral movements along a geosynthetic interface in response to forces generated
by the waste weight. In fact, sliding along a geosynthetic interface can harm the liner sys-
tem’s containment function. If sliding occurs below the geomembrane at a compacted clay
liner/geomembrane interface, the geomembrane will stretch and possibly tear. For these
reasons, it is important to assess the performance of the geosynthetic liner system of landfill.
The paper illustrates the seismic stability analysis conducted during the design of the
extension to an existing landfill located in the Province of Parma (Northern Italy). The
seismic stability analysis of the landfill allowed to evaluate the permanent displacement
along the liner system and to reproduce in a satisfactory way the complex interactions that
occur between the seismic action and the different elements of the landfill.

2 LANDFILL AND GEOTECHNICAL CHARACTERIZATION

The landfill under study is located in the high hill sector of the Parma Apennines (Italy), in
the geological context of the northern Apennine chain. (Figure 1)

Figure 1. Landfill: (a) Chorography of the site (source “Google Earth”). In the red circle the site of the
landfill; (b) Analyzed section; (c) Liner system details.

1178
 Starting from an extensive survey campaign, it was possible to accurately define the
seismic-stratigraphic model of the landfill and obtain an adequate geotechnical character-
ization of soil, waste and geosynthetic liner system.
The waterproofing package positioned at the bottom of the landfill is a geocomposite
formed by a rough HDPE geomembrane, a draining plastic geonet and a smooth HDPE
geomembrane.
The interface shear strength between the several layers of landfill liner has been evaluated
using standard direct shear testing of each soil/geosynthetic, soil/waste and geosynthetic/
geosynthetic interface.
Table 1 reports the characteristic parameters used in the seismic stability checks of the
landfill. Their definition, obtained from a careful analysis of the on-site tests and laboratory
tests carried out during the investigation campaigns, is not discussed in detail in this paper
(Gioffrè et al. 2022).
The existing and the new liner system have been characterized performing several direct
shear tests on different interfaces: geotextile - rough HDPE geomembrane; rough HDPE
geomembrane -geonet; geonet - smooth HDPE geomembrane; smooth HDPE geomem-
brane - geotextile. In the numerical model liner systems have been modelled with an interface
element which geotechnical parameters (Table 1) are referred to the most critical resistance
parameters obtained with direct shear tests on smooth HDPE geomembrane - geotextile
interface.

Table 1. Geotechnical parameters using in landfill seismic stability analysis.

Shear strength
Zone# Material g [kN/m3] Cohesion c’[kPa] angle f’ [ ]

1 Subsoil (Palombini clay) 20 27 21

2 Embankment 20 50 21
3 Waste pre-2010 with leachate 10 0 24
4 Waste pre-2010 14 0 24
5 Waste 14 8 32
6 Capping 20 15 30
Interface 1 (Existing liner system) – 0 10
Interface 2 (New liner system) – 0 14

The seismic-stratigraphic model of the landfill was defined with reference to the results of
the seismic refraction prospecting (o prospection) for the most superficial part of the landfill
(depth  15 m). At greater depths, the values of VS measured in the MASW tests were used
as far as available; in addition, experimental data were extrapolated using a linear inter-
polation approach.
Figure 2 shows the G/Gmax decay curves obtained from experimental laboratory tests for
soil and waste; G/Gmax curves for embankment and capping were taken from the literature
(Darendeli 2001).

3 NUMERICAL MODEL AND SEISMIC INPUT

Non-linear dynamic analyses were carried out using a 2D numerical model of the landfill
implemented in a finite difference computational code (FLAC-2D v8) that is able to consider
both large displacements and relative displacement at liner system interfaces.
The model of the cross section of landfill (maximum reservoir section) is made up of
21,160 elements; the elements of the model have dimensions in height between 0.3 and 3.0 m
(Figure 3). The dimensions of the elements have been chosen to respect the accuracy

1179
Figure 2. Shear modulus G/Gmax reduction curves: (a) Experimental curves for waste at the same
confining pressure; (b) Experimental curves for waste at different confining pressures; (c) Assumed
curves for embankment and capping from Darendeli (2001); (d) Experimental curve for subsoil
(Palombini clay).

Figure 3. FLAC-2D model.

conditions of Kuhlemeyer and Lysmer (1973), i.e. they are equal to 1/10 of the minimum
wavelength, which is a function of the maximum frequency of interest (assumed to be 30 Hz)
and of the shear modulus at small deformations of the materials considered.
The constitutive model used for waste is elasto-plastic where the Mohr-Coulomb resis-
tance criterion governs the triggering mechanism(s) of the permanent deformation. The non-
linearity of the mechanical behavior is also taken into account by the reduction of the shear
modulus G with the level of deformation (hysteretic behavior).
Dynamic analyses have been carried out imposing the following boundary conditions:
absorbent conditions at the base and at the lateral edges (“quite boundaries”) and free-field
conditions along the lateral edges (“free-field boundaries”).
Figure 4 shows the elastic acceleration response spectrum of the seven natural spectrum-
compatible accelerograms selected for the analyses and the acceleration response spectrum
calculated as the average of the selected signals.

1180
Figure 4. Elastic acceleration response spectrum of the selected signals (thin blue lines) and spectrum-
compatible acceleration response spectrum calculated as the average of the selected signals (thick black
line).

4 RESULTS OF NUMERICAL ANALYSES

Displacement information is more beneficial than the seismic safety factor when geosyn-
thetics are used because geosynthetics cannot withstand large displacements. Therefore, the
design can be modified to ensure that little permanent displacement occurs with geosyn-
thetics. The permanent displacement calculated from the analysis can be used to predict
whether the latter will exceed the landfill components’ ability to withstand earthquake-
induced deformation.
Figure 5 shows the absolute permanent displacement at the end of the dynamic analysis
for accelerogram 3 which can be considered representative of the dynamic response of the
landfill. It is possible to observe that the interface (liner system) marks a clear separation of
the movements between the waste body and the substrate. This result is due to the extremely
low shear strength parameters that characterize the contact between the geosynthetics in the
waterproofing package.
From Figure 5 it is also possible to observe that the maximum permanent displacements
are concentrated in a surface area of the landfill near the embankment.
Considering that the most critical conditions for the stability of the landfill occur along the
liner system, the permanent displacements along the interface were also evaluated.

Figure 5. Accelerogram 3: permanent displacement at the end of the analysis (displacements in m).

1181
Table 2. Maximum permanent displacement and maximum permanent displacement along liner
system.

Accelerogram 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Maximum permanent displacement (cm) 15.0 18.0 65.0 27.5 130.0 22.5 8.0
Maximum permanent displacementalong liner system (cm) 12.2 14.5 47.2 21.4 95.2 16.2 4.3

Table 2 reports the horizontal component of the maximum permanent displacement and the
maximum permanent displacements along the liner system obtained in the coupled non-linear
numerical analyses using the two-dimensional landfill model implemented in FLAC-2D.
Results in Table 2 shows that the accelerogram 5 represents the most severe signal as it is the
one associated with the greatest displacements in relation to its duration and its frequency
content. The permanent displacements are so significantly greater than those obtained with all
the other accelerometric signals, that this accelerogram has been considered an “outlier” signal.
Displacements along the liner system make it possible to carry out the conformity checks
that will arise from the comparison between these displacements and the admissible dis-
placement of the geosynthetics present in the waterproofing package.
Figure 6 shows the maximum permanent displacement along the liner system at the end of
the dynamic analyses for the different accelerograms used. From Figure 6 it possible to observe
that the accelerograms 3 and 5 are those that lead to the greatest permanent displacements
along the interface. For all accelerograms, a maximum permanent displacement along the
reduced interface is observed at the second tooth located in the upstream part of the landfill.

Figure 6. Maximum permanent displacements along the liner system at the end of the two-
dimensional dynamic analyses (displacements in m).

5 CONCLUSIONS

The numerical results of the present study lead to the following conclusions: (1) The geo-
technical investigation campaigns carried out over the years have made it possible to obtain
an excellent geotechnical characterization of waste body, base clay, and liner system; (2) The
seismic stability checks of the landfill were carried out by means of non-linear dynamic

1182
analyses which allow to directly calculate the permanent displacement and to reproduce in a
satisfactory way the complex interactions that occur between the seismic action and the
different elements of the landfill through the mobilization of their strength and deform-
ability. The constitutive model assumed for the waste is of the non-linear hysteretic elasto-
plastic type with reduction of the shear modulus with the level of deformation and Mohr-
Coulomb failure criterion; (3) Permanent displacement data can be used to evaluate the
performance of the geosynthetic liner system.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We thank Prof. Gian Michele Calvi, Geol. Luca Crepaldi, Eng. Gianni Fava, Prof. Mario
Manassero, Eng. Alberto Minardi and Eng. Piero Simone for their assistance in data
acquisition and their useful suggestions.

REFERENCES

Darendeli, M. B. 2001. Development of a New Family of Normalized Modulus Reduction and Material
Damping Curves, Ph.D. thesis, Univ.of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX.
Kuhlemeyer, R.L. and Lysmer. J. 1973 Finite Element Method Accuracy for Wave Propagation Problems.
Journal of the Soil Dynamics Division, 99: 421–427.
Lai C.G., Foti S., Rota M. 2009. Input Sismico e Stabilità Geotecnica Dei Siti di Costruzione, Series of
Manuals of Aseismic Design, Vol. 6, IUSS Press. ISBN: 9 8-88-6198-035-8.
Gioffrè D., Lai C.G., Zuccolo E. 2023. Analisi di Stabilità Sismica di Una Discarica di Rifiuti Speciali Non
Pericolosi a Fornovo di Taro (Parma). Rivista Italiana di Geotecnica 1/2023 (in Italian), Gennaio-Marzo
2023, 5–29.
Rampello S., Callisto L. 2008. Stabilità dei Pendii in Condizioni Sismiche. In Opere Geotecniche in Condizioni
Sismiche. XII Ciclo di Conferenze di Meccanica e Ingegneria delle Rocce: 241–271.

1183