Assessment of Geosynthetics Interface Friction for Slope Barriers of Landfill

J.P.Gourc , R.Reyes-Ramirez & P.Villard

Lirigm, University Grenoble 1, France
gourc@ujf-grenoble.fr

ABSTRACT: Stability of Geosynthetic Lining Systems is, for a geotechnical standpoint, a complex matter.
Three geomechanical questions were identified: sliding of the geosynthetic lining system on slope, pull-out
strength of the geosynthetic anchorage at the top of the slope, rain erosion of the cap cover. Research
programmes carried out in France on these topics, , are presented. Use of laboratory facilities (mainly different
Inclined Planes) and large scale experimentations on actual slopes is especially emphasized. The observations
derived from the tests and their detailed interpretation are really fruitful, as they highlight specific local
interaction behaviour between soil and geosynthetics, which are not taken into account in design methods,
more particularly wrinkles and real relative displacements of geosynthetics along the slope (Chapter 2),
realistic value of interface friction angle (Chapter 3 ), pull-out strength of a L-shape anchorage (Chapter 4),
identification of the mechanisms of control of erosion by geosynthetics (Chapter 5).
1 INTRODUCTION
Preservation of the lining barrier of domestic and industrial waste disposal is important firstly for
environmental reasons. One of the modern strategies for waste disposal is the concept of bioreactor (Figure
1): the landfill is now considered as a center of energy recovering , which requires still more care specifically
for the implementation of the cap cover ( Olivier et al, 2003), since:
- biogas should be collected with the minimum loss through the barrier
- leachate could be recirculated in order to accelerate the waste degradation without uncontrolled water
supply from the cap cover.
The control of flow through the cap cover induced serious geotechnical problems, because:
- cap liner are more and more composite structures, Geosynthetic Lining Systems (GLS), with interface
matters
- slopes of cap cover are steep, in order to make more profitable the disposal site, with the maximum dumping
volume.
- the cap cover is supported by a waste body which is often extremely compressible.

Figure 1. The bioreactor new concept for an updated domestic waste landfill (from Environmental French
Agency Ademe )
116

This Lecture is the opportunity to summarize several research works carried out at the Lirigm of the
University of Grenoble in France, related to the different stability problems arising in landfill applications.
Three questions were identified (Figure 2):
- sliding of the geosynthetic lining system on slope (chapters 2 and 3)
- pull-out strength of the geosynthetic anchorage (chapter 4)
- rain erosion of the cap cover
This research programme includes theoretical and experimental development, but in the framework of this
Lecture, use of laboratory facilities (mainly Inclined Planes) and large scale experimentations is emphasized.

Anchorage
GLS stability
Erosion Control

Figure 2. Main issues related to the stability of Geosynthetic Lining Systems on landfill slopes

2 STABILITY OF GEOSYNTHETIC LINING SYSTEMS (GLS) ON SLOPE

In the framework of large research programmes, sponsored by the French Environmental Agency ADEME
and Industrial Companies, two large scale experimentations were carried out on actual landfill sites (Montreuil
and Torcy in France). Main results are presented below.
The sealing systems used for the sloping sides of waste storage centres are made up of different geosynthetic
and mineral components. The distribution of forces within each component is complex and results mainly from
the deformability and frictional interaction between components. One of the aims of the Geosynthetics Lining
System implemented is to separate the functions of the different items: stability is guaranteed by the geotextile
of reinforcement (GtR) while the geomembrane (Gm) acts as the sealing layer and must be subjected to the
minimum possible tensile stress. In addition a geospacer (GS) for transmissivity of water to drain is possibly
inserted between the geomembrane and the geotextile of reinforcement. The (GtR) has also a filter function to
avoid the clogging of the geospacer.
Different design methods based on simple limit equilibrium method are available (Giroud, 1989, Soyez et al,
1990, Koerner et al, 1991 (Figure 3), Poulain et al 2004). However, as demonstrated by a Finite Element
Method approach (Villard et al, 1999), selected assumptions for the interface properties and boundary
conditions are questionable.
Several unfortunate failures have resulted from soil sliding down the slick liner/drainage system interface.
An accurate design of the (GtR) is required because this sheet is in charge of providing high frictional strength
to the cover soil , but this condition is not sufficient: there is a high sensitivity of the relative displacements
and mobilisation forces of the different components of the GLS to the interface friction relationship and the
mode of construction.
In these conditions, case histories are needed to present a comprehensive view of this issue.

117

Figure 3: Typical stability design method (Two Wedges method) for GLS (Koerner et al, 1991)
2.1 Tensile mobilization in geosynthetics during construction (Montreuil landfill experimentation):
The geosynthetic lining system (Figure 4), (Gourc et al,1997,Villard et al, 1999), supported by a clay base
layer, consists of an HDPE geomembrane (Gm: J = 458 kN/m), a non-woven geotextile (GtR : J= 65 kN/m)
and a cover soil 0.30 m thick granular soil layer. The friction angles g are 9 for Gm/support interface, 12 for
GtR/Gm interface and 29 for the granular soil/GtR interface. The slope is 2H/1V.

Fastening post
Cable-type measuring
Granular material
1

Toe stop
9m

Gt
Gm

Clay support
Figure 4. Monitoring on a slope barrier of the Montreuil landfill
The forces acting on the geosynthetics at top of the slope were measured by force sensors positioned
between the geotextile sheet clamps and the fastening posts anchored at the top of the slope. The
displacements of the geosynthetics and the cover granular layer were monitored by means of cable-type
displacement sensors linked to the fastening posts and regularly spaced on the geosynthetic sheets and in the
granular soil layer.
The full experimental programme consisted of four successive implementation stage, but only the first one
is presented here:
The layer of granular material is placed on the slope (up to a length along the slope and Lc = 6 m from the
bottom). This experimental stage involves monitoring the forces and displacements in the various GLS
components while loading the granular material layer metre by metre on the slope over a total loading length,
Lc, of 6 m.

118

Figure 5 illustrate the displacements in the granular material and in the geotextile during loading of the
cover soil layer for increasing length (Lc). The displacements in the geotextile are far greater than those in the
geomembrane. The relative downward displacement between geotextile and geomembrane induces a frictional
force towards the bottom of the geomembrane. In agreement with the concept of separation of functions, the
elongation due to tensile force in the geomembrane is very low. Figure 6 presents the evolution of the
(extreme) tensile force in the geotextile and geomembrane sheets measured at the top of the slope with lifting
of soil cover (Lc).
Figure 7 is especially interesting, seeing that it presents the strains in the geotextile sheet for increasing
length (Lc). It is worth noting that the geotextile, acting as a reinforcement, is subjected to positive tensile
strains (elongations) at the top of the slope whereas it is in compression at the bottom of the slope. Given that
the slope length is constant, the elongation of the sheet at the top is compensated at the bottom by the
formation of wrinkles (Figure 8).This complex behaviour is generally not taken in consideration in design and
numerical calculations.
Displacement (cm)
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 1 2 3

Geotextile

Lc = 6 m
Lc = 5 m
Lc = 4 m
Lc = 3 m

Phase I

4 5
L(m)

Displacement (mm)

Phase I

Lc = 6 m
Lc = 5 m
Lc = 4 m
Lc = 3 m

5
4

Granular soil

3
2
1
0
0

3
4
L (m)

Figure 5. Montreuil landfill slope: displacements of the granular soil cover (down) and of the geotextile (up)

Tension (kN/m)

Phase I
Geomembrane

1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0

Geotextile

3
4
Lc (m)

Figure 6. Montreuil landfill slope: tensile forces in the geotextile and geomembrane

119

Strain (%)

L (m)

0
0

-1
Lc = 6m

-2

Lc = 5m
Lc = 4m

-3

Figure 7. Montreuil landfill slope: Distribution of strains in the geotextile (elongation positive)

Tension
Compression
Figure 8. Mechanism inducing wrinkles at the base of the slope

2.2 Long term survey of a geosynthetic cap lining system (Experimentation of Torcy)
The site of Torcy is a landfill of domestic and non hazardous domestic waste. This experiment differs from
the previous one by the far larger length of the slope (50 m instead of 9 m) , the inclination of the slope
(3H/1V) , the long term monitoring of the movements of the GLS after construction (2 year) and the 4
different lining systems tested (Figure 9) (Villard et al,2000, Feki et al, 2002).

GTr
GS
GMpp

Soil Cover

GTr

GS

Clay

GMb

P1

GTr
GS
GTs

Soil Cover

Soil Cover

Clay
P3

0.3
1m

Clay
P2

Soil Cover

Clay
P4

Figure 9. The 4 different geosynthetic lining systems on slope (Torcy)

120

The present presentation focus on (P1) and (P2) trials, which could be distinguished by the type of
geomembrane: For (P1) it is a polypropylene geomembrane (Gm PP) and for (P2), it is a bituminuous one
(Gm B). The differences in the mechanical characteristics are significant, related to the tensile stiffness
(tensile modulus J) :
GtR ( J= 580 kN/m), GmB (J = 80 kN/m) , GmPP ( J = 51 kN/m)
and the friction propertie g :
Trial (P1): clay/GmPP (138)
Trial (P2): clay/GmB (18)

GmPP/GS (7) GS/GtR (18)

GmB / GS (31) GS/GtR (18)

To attach the geosynthetics at the top of the slope, a large trench of anchorage (1 m deep and 1 m wide)
was used to bury the geosynthetics in such a way that no significative sliding of geosynthetics could be
observed at the top edge.
Similar monitoring system than in Montreuil was used (metallic cables attached on every geosynthetic layer
at different points), to evaluate the displacements along the slope.

Tangential displacement
u (mm)

Short term behaviour (end of construction tc to tc+ 72h):

SShort term
Short term behaviour just after completion of the cover soil on the geosynthetics was observed (Villard et al,
2000). Figures 10 and 11 show the distribution of the tangential displacement of the different components of
(P1) and (P2) along the slope (distance L from the top ), between the time corresponding to the end of
construction (tc) and time (tc + 72 hours): in both cases, a critical interface was noted depending on which
the sliding (difference in displacement between the two geosynthetics in contact) was strongest: for (P1),
between the geomembrane GmPP and geospacer GS (g = 7, interface with the least friction) and for (P2)
between the geospacer GS and the geotextile for reinforcement GtR (g= 18, same condition).
400

GTr

350

GS
GMpp
Clay

300
250
200
150
100
50

L (m)

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

Tangential displacement
u (mm)

Figure 10. Trial P1 - tangential displacements in the different components at tc

90
80

GTr

70
60
50

GMb

GS
Clay

40
30
20
10
0
-10 0

L ( m)
10

20

30

40

50

Figure 11. Trial P2 - tangential displacements in the different components at tc

121

The comparative behaviour of the two trials (P1) and (P2) clearly illustrates how it is possible to modify the
whole deformation of a GLS only by changing the friction properties of one interface (here geomembrane/
geospacer).
Long term behaviour after construction (2 years):
The main studies available in the literature are limited to the short term behaviour of the geosynthetic liner
on slope. For the present study, the two trials were monitored during two years.
Long-term monitoring is more complex, additional measures of the settlements of the waste body beneath
the cap GLS should be needed because the waste embankment, consisting of domestic and non hazardous
waste, is compressible and mechanically viscous: the profile of the slope is deformed, and more seriously, the
monitoring table at the top of the slope settles, following the waste body deformation.
Figure 12, which plots the vertical settlement ( s ) versus elapsed time confirms the similarity of behaviour
for the two profiles (P1 and P2) over time. The settlements are significative, due to the compressibility of
waste. In these conditions the GLS should accommodate and conform to its support without ruin of its
functional properties.
The results collected from this case historie are remarkable since for the two trials, the tangential
displacements of all the components of the GLS are of the same order than those in the cover soil (Figure 13).
So there is practically no additional relative displacement between the different sheets after the construction
stage (tc+ 72h).So no additional tensile mobilization in the GLS can be expected.

tc(end of construction) + 72h

12

15

18

21

24

(t-tc) months

settlement (mm)

100
200
300

P1 (L=30m)

400

P3 (L=30m)
P1 (L=5m)

P2 (L=30m)

500

P2 (L=5m)
P3 (L=5m)

600

L= 5m

L=30 m

s
s
L

Figure 12. Torcy landfill: Vertical settlements along the slope (L= 5m and L = 30 m from the top )

122

Tangential displacement
u (mm)

200
150
cover soil
GTr
GS
GMpp
clay

100
50
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

(t -to) months

Tangential displacement
u (mm)

200

cover soil
GTr
GS
GMb
clay

150
100
50
0
0

12

15

18

21

24

( t -to ) months

Figure 13. Torcy landfill: Evolution during 2 years of the tangential displacements along the slope for the
different components of the GLS (Trials P1 & P2)
2.3 Conclusions
The observation of the actual behaviour of GLS on slope demonstrates that their mechanical behaviour is
complex and really difficult to modelize: extreme sensitivity to the interface friction properties, influence of
the construction conditions, influence of the compressibility of the waste body for cap liners.
In the next Chapter 3, assessment of interfaces friction will be considered and in chapter 4 ,a decisive
boundary condition for the GLS, the anchorage strength of the geosynthetics at the top of the slope will be
analysed.
3

USE OF INCLINED PLANE TO ASSESS STRESS MOBILIZATION OF LINER ON SLOPE

GLS stability

Figure14. Assessment of the interface properties of the different components of the GLS

123

The large scale experimentations presented above have demonstrated behavioral sensitivity to small
modifications in, for example, the friction interface relationship. The complete friction interface relationship
(shear stress vs. tangential displacement and, ultimately, vs. time t) often proves necessary in explaining
distribution of tensile forces and relative displacements in the Geosynthetic Lining System. Hence, thorough
understanding of the complete friction interface relationship ( /' = f( , t) at a fixed normal stress '), and not
just friction limit values (sg and gg with limit /' = tan , threshold value) of the soil-geosynthetic and
geosynthetic-geosynthetic, is required to the stability analysis of sloped systems (Gourc et al ,2004).
These interface relationships are determined using devices of either the shear box or inclined plane type
and such equipment is currently undergoing standardization (European Standard final draft prEN ISO 12957,
2001: Article 1 for the Shear Box test, Article 2 for the Inclined Plane test , Gourc et al , 1996).
The inclined plane test is commonly used when studying the stability of sloping geosynthetic liner systems
under conditions of low normal stress. The inclined plane offers the dual advantage of enabling testing at low
normal stresses at the interface and allowing for test condition modulation. The rational minimum normal
stress is = 25 kPa for the Shear Box test which is higher than the actual stresses induced by a layer of cap
soil cover .So Inclined Plane test is generally preferred for the design of cap liner.
Both the shear box (SB) and the inclined plane (IP) tests are presented on Figures 15 and 16 respectively.
Shear box device is initially based on a large direct shear equipment. In addition the present box has been
adapted to fit the need of a uniform distribution of the normal stress ', thanks to an hydraulic bag set under
the compression plate.
Inclined plane device is specially designed for tests on soil- geosynthetic or geosynthetic-geosynthetic
interfaces. This is the adaptation of the two devices to this configuration which is presented on Figures 15 and
16. In addition, adaptation of the device for simulation of water flow at the interface is also possible (Gourc et
al,2001, Brianon et al , 2002) .

Figure 15. Shear Box Device ( SB ) .Adaptation to Geosynthetic / Geosynthetic interfaces

Displacement monitoring

(t)
Upper geosynthetics

Lower geosynthetics
Collect of data

w
(t)
Tilting system

Figure 16. Inclined Plane device ( IP ): adaptation to geosynthetic / geosynthetic interfaces

124

3.1 Comparison between IP and SB results:

(Lalarakotoson et al, 1999) demonstrated that the SB test results are globally consistents with the IP tests,
as well as the modification of shear behaviour with the normal stress is taken into account.
The results for IP and SB tests for interface between a reinforcement geotextile (GTr) and a geospacer (GS),
are presented (Reyes et al, 2002 and 2003):Comparison of threshold angle of friction (gg) values:
The SB tests (Figure 17) submitted to three normal stresses (' = 25, 50 and 75 kPa) gave for gg a value
of 16.8. It should be noted that no peak frictional strength is observed for this particular interface. For the
IP test (Figure 18) with '0 = 5.7 kPa, yields at s = gg = 18.4. This drop in the angle of friction with '
increasing is often considered as similar to the phenomenon well known for granular soil , but ,as
demonstrated in 3.4 it could be also ascribed partially to an overestimation of gg due to a standard
interpretation of the Inclined Plane results.
The following must nonetheless be highlighted:
Test kinematics are considerably different in the direct shear box and the inclined plane tests. No strain
softening has been observed within the shear box tests; however, residual friction cannot be measured
under any circumstances with the inclined plane given that non-stabilized sliding arises at constant /'
values (it would be necessary, to demonstrate strain softening, to reduce inclination once instability is
first detected!).
Using the inclined plane, the threshold angle stipulated by European Standards is typically obtained for
the soil-geosynthetic test with a relative displacement = 50 mm, which remains extremely high, at least
for geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces. Furthermore, behavioral information available on the phase
preceding non-stabilized sliding, which may be quite distinct from one geosynthetic to the next, is not
taken into account. Behavior during this phase could serve to distinguish between various interfaces all
displaying the same gg value (Figure 19). This observation instigates a comparison of the behavior during
the phase of small displacements prior to the threshold sliding phase characterized by angle gg.
The effective normal stress ' decreases throughout the inclined plane test, and the parameter/' = tan
was selected to allow comparison with the shear box test. Displacement and stress ratio /' relationships for
shear box and inclined plane tests are shown in Figure 20 from Figures 17 and 18 for the same GTr-GS
interface. The results presented are for normal stresses ' = 25, 50 and 75 kPa for the direct shear box, while '
varies in the inclined plane test (' = 5.4 kPa for s = 18.4 at = 50 mm ). The displacement corresponding
to maximum friction (s) appears considerably smaller within the inclined plane test, with this observation not
necessarily due to the lower normal stress. The shear box test set-up does not enable testing under very low
normal stress conditions (' = 5.4 kPa)
.Knowing the displacement (s) is essential when seeking to incorporate an accurate interface friction
relationship for an elaborate computation of geosynthetic liner system deformation on slope, e.g. using the
finite element method.
' (kPa)
75

25

(kPa)

20
15

50

10

25
5
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

(mm)

Figure 17. Shear Box test (GTr-GS): shear stress ( ) versus displacement ( ) for 3
different normal stresses (' ).

125

100

(mm)

80

60

40

20

0
0

10

12

14

16

18

20

gg = 18.4

Figure 18. Inclined Plane test (GTr-GS): displacement ( ) versus slope angle ( ) for ('0 = 5.7 kPa).

SB

IP

tan gg

s
gg

Figure 19. Different patterns of the friction behaviour in SB and IP tests

50

(mm)

50

SB

40

75
25

30

IP
20

10

0
0

0,05

0,1

0,15

0,2

0,25

0,3

0,35

0,4

/ '

Figure 20. Attempt to compare (IP) and (SB) test on the same diagram: (GTr-GS interface).

126

3.2 (IP) test to find the optimal position of the Geosynthetic reinforcing the soil cover (GtR)
The Inclined Plane device is specifically adapted to highlight the role of reinforcement of a geosynthetic,
stabilizing the soil cover ( Lalarakotoson et al , 1998 ).
A schematic side view of the test apparatus is shown in Figure 21
The reference case, ie unreinforced, includes a compacted soil layer filling an orthogonal rigid box , a
geomembrane placed on a rigid horizontal PVC support and connected to an anchorage device by clamps. The
PVC support is fixed on the tilting base plane ( geomembrane/support = 20) . The upper box is supported on the
base plane by means of metallic rollers on both sides.
In the present case, the reinforcement consists in placing a geosynthetic at different positions (d) in relation
with the thickness of the soil (Figure 22). It is worth noting that a similar case was recently studied by
( Palmeira et al, 2003).
The system is mobilized by tilting progressively the plane at low constant vertical rate. The global state of
the system can be described by the angle of plane inclination , the relative displacement u of the box and the
maximal axial force T mobilized within the different geosynthetics.
The diagramme (Figure 23) displays the complex behaviour of the system and the evolution of the
distribution of forces between the geomembrane (TGm ) and the geosynthetic of reinforcement (TGtR) and the
evolution of the displacement (u) of the soil cover. The reference is the case without reinforcement of the
soil cover.
The (GtR) is a geogrid (J= 650 kN/m), positioned in three different position (Figure 22), close to the
geomembrane (traditional position:base) or at d = 0.05 m or 0.15m above the geomembrane base. The
geomembrane has a stiffness (J= 450 kN/m).The soil cover is a dense sand ( peak = 39 , res = 32).
The benefit gained including a reinforcement of the soil layer is clear:
Sliding of the upper box is obtained for an inclination of the plane only = 27 without GtR.In this
experimental configuration, friction to guidance of the upper box should be subtracted to obtain gs
geomembrane-soil = 28.4 at peak) . On the other hand the efficiency of the reinforcement geosynthetic is
decreasing when the geosynthetic is closer to the geomembrane: tensile force in the geomembrane TGm higher
and displacement (u) higher for the same inclination .
However, due to field difficulties to lay the geosynthetic of reinforcement into the thickness of the soil
cover in place of directly on the geomembrane base, the traditional position of the GtR on landfill slopes
remains the position on contact with the geomembrane.

5
15

TRenfort

TGm
10 cm
Boitier (100 x 70 x 30 cm3)

Capteurs de tension

Renfort
Gomembrane

PVC support

LVDT

40

Figure 21. Inclined Plane test: Adaptation to the evaluation of the reinforcement of a soil layer

127

0,05 m

0,15 m

0,30 m

GtR

Gm

Base

Figure 22. Different positions of the geosynthetic of reinforcement in the IP upper box
10

GtR
d=0

u (mm

no reinf.
- - - - - Rwithout
reinforcement
ence
base
base: d = 0
base + 5 cm
d = 0,05 m
base + 15 cm
d = 0,15m

GtR
5

d = 0,05
d = 0,15

Cover Soil
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0.8
no reinf.

T G m(kN)

0.6
GtR
0.4

- - - - - without reinforcement
R ence
base: d = 0
base
d=
m
base
+ 5 0,05
cm
base + 15 cm
d = 0,15m

d = 0,15
d = 0,05

0.2

d = 0,05

Geomembrane
0
0

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Figure 23. Relative displacement (u), Tensile force in the Geosynthetic of reinforcement and in the
Geomembrane, due to the inclination of the plane, for different positions of the reinforcement.
3.3 (IP) to emphasize the creep behaviour of some geosynthetics interfaces:
The inclined plane test, in comparison with the shear box test, features the possibility of easily conducting
tests at constant stresses (',), a situation that corresponds with the actual case on slope in the field.
Tests of this type, called "creep tests", were performed at the Lirigm on interface between Geomembrane
and Geonet used at the base of the Geosynthetic Lining System (Reyes et al , 2003).These tests consist of
raising the inclined plane (at a constant d/dt), i.e. the upper plate with its geomembrane in a fixed position (
= 0) up to an angle of less than the non-stabilized sliding value ( = c < s), with s the inclination
corresponding to the non-stabilized sliding .The next step calls for observing the evolution in displacement
with constant = c while freeing the upper plate.
Once a plane inclination of c has been reached, the upper plate is released and sliding displacement (c) is
recorded vs. time (t - tc) at constant plane inclination c.
The case of a polypropylene geomembrane GMpp is examined, since this exhibits more gradual sliding
during the standard test at constant inclination rate: Figure 24 plots the results of a standard test, with
displacement () versus time (t) instead of inclination (). Given a rate d/dt = 3/min, the displacement can
no longer be related as a function of but rather of time t, for (c) values sharply lower than (s)
(corresponding to the non-stabilized sliding). Displacement () in the standard test is indeed non-negligible
( = 2 mm for = 10.2 < s = 14.2).

128

Figure 25 shows the creep results obtained for three different inclinations c: even for c values much lower
than the threshold inclination s, the displacement is not stabilized. This important finding may lead to
reconsidering the significance and technique for determining the threshold angle of friction gg in the standard
test since non-stabilized sliding is obtained for c < s. It may also be observed that the creep displacement
rate d/dt at identical time (t tc) increases when nearing s.
The representation of the standard test diagram in Figure 24 may be completed in order to include the creep
phase. Figure 26 combines the standard test displayed in Figure 24 with the creep test in Figure 25.
The results in Figure 26 show what the sliding behaviour of the interface would be if a standard test were
interrupted prior to reaching the non-stabilized sliding phase.
The same tests were conducted for a Geomembrane HDPE in contact with the same Geospacer, test on
GMhdpe-GS interface and it was found that even if a zone of gradual sliding (less pronounced than for GMpp)
is present within certain standard tests, the tests carried out with various c values do not show any creep
sliding even after being run for 12 hours. Displacement only occurs once inclination has equaled or surpassed
s. In Figure 27, we combined (as we did for GMpp) the results of a standard test (inclination vs. time) with
those of a creep test for the GMhdpe-GS interface.
In this particular case, creep at the interface is not highlighted as was the case for the GMpp-GS interface.
Creep behavior therefore does not systematically appear for all geosynthetic interfaces.According to this serie
of tests and in the case of interfaces exhibiting gradual sliding "strain hardening" prior to the non-stabilized
sliding phase (i.e. high s), creep for c < s (the case of GMpp) is still observed whereas for interfaces
displaying more sudden "brittle" sliding (the case of GMhdpe), creep is no longer observed. This statement
should however be confirmed on other interfaces.
Static Test GMpp-GS (t & )
' 0 = 5.7 kPa

10

= 14.2

(mm)

d /dt =3 min

= 11

= 9

= 10

0
40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

t (sec)

Figure 24. Standard Inclined Plane test on GMpp-GS interface: displacement ( ) versus time (t) instead of
inclination b ('0 = 5.7 kPa).
Creep Test GMpp-GS
' 0 = 5.7 kPa
100

c = 11
c = 10

(mm)

80
60
40

c = 9
20
0
0

tc

t-t c (hours)

Figure 25. Creep test on GMpp-GS interface, for three different constant inclinations c.

129

10

s = 14.2

d /dt =3 min

9
8

(standard test)

(mm)

(creep tests)

c = 11

5
4
3

c = 10

c = 9

1
0
40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

t (sec)

Figure 26. Inclined Plane test on GMpp-GS interface: combination of a standard test diagram with three creep
test diagrams (inclination c).

10

= 13,8

d /dt = 3 min

9
8

(standard test)

(mm)

6
5

4
3

= 12

(creep test)

= 11

0
120

140

160

180

200

220

240

260

280

t (sec)

Figure 27. Inclined Plane test on GMhdpe-GS interface: combination of a standard test diagram with five creep
test diagrams (inclination c).

3.4 Interpretation of the dynamic phase during an Inclined Plane test

This is a new and more comprehensive interpretation of the Inclined Plane test.
Indeed in the present time only the limit inclination = S corresponding to the unstabilized sliding along the
slope is considered. With a negligible friction due to guidance, the ISO standard 12957-2 gives:
tan s = tan S

conventionaly evaluated for a sliding displacement = 50 mm.

A more careful study could be fruitful as demonstrated in the presentation below.

The behavior may be separated into several phases ( Figure 28 ), as follows:
Phase 1 (static phase): upper box practically immobile ( = 0) over the inclined plane until reaching an
angle = 0;
Phase 2 (transitory phase): for an increasing rate of inclination ( > 0), upper box moving gradually
downward direction.
Phase 3 (non-stabilized sliding phase): upper box undergoing non-stabilized sliding at an increasing speed
(d/dt), even if plane inclination is held constant ( = s).

130

Figure 28. Different phases of the upper box movement, for increasing inclination of the inclined plane.
In the literature, nobody pays attention to the different behaviour of geosynthetics during this phase. As
demonstrated in (Gourc et al, 2004) ,the analysis of this phase could be instructive.
From the inclination value = s, the sliding rate of the upper box becomes significant and the mechanical
analysis must absolutely be conducted in dynamics (taking into account the displacement acceleration ) and
no longer in statics, as is typical practice.
In Phase (3), = s and it was demonstrated (Gourc et al,2004) that the upper box is in a state of
r
movement, with a constant acceleration c .It is possible to determine a new friction angle:

tan cdyn = tan s

1
c .
cos s g

Finally it is possible to distinguish three friction angles:

= tan s : standard but non accurate ( and non conservative) friction angle corresponding to the
- tan stat
s
unstabilized sliding movement
- tan 0stat = tan o for a displacement = 0 : conservative friction angle corresponding to the initialization
of the movement
- tan dyn
calculated in dynamic conditions for movement with constant acceleration
c

0 = s

dyn

stat

Figure 29. Evolution of the displacement , the acceleration and the interface friction angle with the plane
inclination (sudden sliding)
The Figure 29 presents the corresponding schematic evolution during an IP test of the displacement , the
acceleration and the actual friction angle with the inclination .
As indicated on Figure 30, in fact Phase 2 may be of various types:
Type a) sudden sliding - abrupt displacement of the upper box under non-stabilized sliding with a nearlyinexistent Phase 2 (0 = s);
Type b) jerky sliding - displacement () increasing in a "stick-slip" fashion;
Type c) gradual sliding - displacement () progressively increasing with inclination ().

131

It was demonstrated a correlation between the different friction angles depending of the type of phase 2:
Sudden sliding(Type (a) Figure 30 is observed for (tan 0stat > tan dyn
c )
Gradual sliding (Type (c) Figure 30) is observed in opposite case for tan 0stat < tan dyn
c .Friction is
increasing with the displacement () and the upper box sliding requires an increase of the inclination from o
to s to reach the non-stabilized sliding
(mm)

s
Type (a) : sudden sliding
(mm)

()

(mm)

(3)
50 mm

(1)

(2)

()

0
s
Type (c) : gradual sliding

Type (b) : jerky sliding

()

Figure 30. Different mechanisms of sliding observed in the Inclined Plane test: (a) sudden sliding (b) jerky
sliding (c) gradual sliding
For instance, lets consider the test on interface Geomembrane HDPE / Geospacer .A test of the same set is
presented on Figure 27. On the figure 31, a comprehensive dynamic interpretation of the test is presented. A
fine analysis of the movement phase allows the determination of a phase of uniform acceleration
(displacement rate proportional to time):
Initialization of the movement is obtained for :
tan o = tan 0stat = tan 10.0
Taking into account the acceleration c = 0.35 m/s2 the formula above guives :
tan dyn
= tan 11.9
c
The conventional "static" interpretation sharply overestimates the interface friction :
= tan s = tan 13.9
tan stat
s
Finally the observation of a gradual sliding (type (c) Figure 30) is fully compatible with the friction results,
(friction increasing with movement).
seeing that tan 0stat < tan dyn
c

132

GMhdpe-GS
0,1
0,08

(m)

0,06

50

0,04
0,02
0
0

10

12

14

16

GMhdpe-GS
0,1

(m)

0,08
0,06

50

0,04
0,02
0
160

180

200

220

240

260

280

300

t (sec)

GMhdpe-GS ('0 = 5,7 kPa)

tmax
0,7

0,7

0,6

0,6
ti

0,5

0,4

0,4

0,3

0,3

0,2

0,2

0,1

0,1

(m/s

(m)

0,5

0
262

263

264

265

266

267

268

t (sec)
displace me nt

displace me nt rate

Figure 31: Comprehensive dynamic interpretation of an interface friction test at the Inclined Plane:
(1) Displacement / inclination - (2) Inclination / time t (with = 0 for t = 0 ) - (3) Displacement / time t
and Displacement rate / time t during the non-stabilized sliding phase ( Figure 28 ) .

133

Finally the conventional friction angle stat

is not theoretically justified and it is systematically greater than
s
stat
0stat and generally greater than dyn
for assessing
c . Consequently using conventional friction angle s
stability of geosynthetic liners in slopes is not conservative. It would be reasonable to revisit the ISO-CEN
12957-2 corresponding standard. The decision to select either 0stat or dyn
for design of geosynthetic systems
c
on slopes can be influenced by a new interpretation of the creep tests already displayed above (Reyes and
Gourc, 2003).

ANCHORAGE CAPACITY OF GEOSYNTHETICS IN TRENCHES

(b

Anchorage
Friction
Soil layer

(a)

(c)

(d

Figure 32. Evaluation of the pull-out strength of the geosynthetic anchorage

The behavior of the anchorage of geosynthetics sheets at the top of a slope is a decisive factor when it
comes to determining the dimensions of geosynthetic lining systems on slopes. In order to optimize the
geometry of the structures in question (to reduce the area taken up by the anchorage at the top of the slope),
anchorage solutions using trenches of varying forms are sometimes used. Calculating the required dimensions
of this anchorage remains problematic. In order to improve knowledge of the behavior of anchor trenches,
experimental and numerical studies at the Lirigm in Grenoble (Chareyre et al,2002 and 2004 ) and at the
Cemagref in Bordeaux (Brianon et al, 2000) were carried out .
The role of the anchor is to withstand the tensile force generated by friction along the slope (Figure32) as
evaluated on site in the Chapter 2. This can be done using a simple run-out (linear) anchor . However, the
geosynthetic sheets are often installed in trenches, with a L-shape, V-shape or U-shape, to optimise the
dimensions of the anchor zone (minimal horizontal area occupied) and to ensure effective anchorage. To size
the system, it is necessary to estimate the tension that can be mobilised in the anchor (the anchoring capacity)
according to its geometry and the properties of the constituent materials.
Very few large scale experimentations were carried out (Imaizumi et al,1997) in order to calibrate the
traditional design methods . The target of the present work is to improve the design, taking into account the
complex interactive behaviour of soil and geosynthetic anchor.

4.1 Pull-out experimentations

Small scale experimentations
Firstly, preliminary anchorage tests were carried out at the Lirigm on a small scale model in an analogic
two-dimensional granular soil (Schneebelli rollers composed of 5mm and 3mm diameter and 60 mm length
duralumin rollers, friction angle = 22). The sheet was a thin non woven geotextile (Villard et al, 1997). The
stereophotogrammetric technics was used to get the displacements field (Figure 33).
Several trial tests were performed, comparing the pull-out behaviour of sheets of similar length (L= 0.30 m
or 0.40 m) but different geometry. In each test, the height of the soil above was H= 0.15 m.

134

On Figure 34, the corresponding pull-out force is reported versus the displacement (U0) of the anchor head.
It is worth noting that, for the same sheet length, the anchorage geometry has a little effect on the anchor
strength, but the maximum pull-out force is reached for a larger displacement for the U-shaped anchor.
Figure 33 recording the displacements for soil and sheet highlights the mechanisms involved during the
pull-out process:
For the linear anchor , the failure of the soil above the sheet is clearly corresponding to the assumption of
failure of the soil mass above the sheet in accordance with one of the analytical models proposed below
(Figure 39 : displacement of the block (A)) .
For the L shaped and U-shaped anchors, compression of soil at the bends (Figure 35). This is a
significant mechanism, difficult to take into account in a theoretical approach.

(1)

(2)
(3)

Figure 33. Field of displacement in the geotextile and in the soil around (analogic Schneebelli soil)
during pull-out test for anchorages of different shapes ( [1] linear, [2] L-shape and [3] U-shape) .

Head force (N)

100
80
60

U-trench Ln=40cm
linear Ln=40cm
L-trench Ln=30cm
linear Ln=30cm

40
20

Head displacement (cm)

0
0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Figure 34 : Evolution of the pull-out force for anchorages of different shapes (analogic Schneebelli soil).

135

Figure 35 : Typical mechanism of compression at the anchorage bend, during pull-out test.
Large scale experimentations
The main large scale experimentations were carried out at the Cemagref of Bordeaux (Brianon et al, 2000)
on an anchorage bench of large dimensions (Figure 36) offering the possibility of performing full-scale pullout tests. Tests with specific instrumentation were carried out on sandy silt and on sand, in order to provide a
better understanding of the phenomena involved and so as to be able to compare the results with those from
numerical modeling ( Chareyre et al, 2002 and 2004, Villard et al , 2004 ) with on one hand an analytical
approach and on the other hand the Dictinct Element Method ( DEM).
Metal clamp

Geosyntheti Side wall

1m

Pulley
H

Winch

L
Traction system

Anchor Block

1.5 m

B
Soil

Figure 36. Large scale experimentation related to geosynthetics pull-out tests ( Cemagref-Brianon et al,2000).
The anchorage bench was composed of an anchor block of a width of one meter and a traction system. The
dimensions of the anchorage zone allowed for an anchor trench with a total depth (D+H) equal to 1 m and a
length covered (L+B) of up to 1.2 m. The traction system was composed of a winch with a maximum capacity
of 50 kN and a pulley that allowed us to exert the tensile forces on the geosynthetic at incline angles of
between 0 and 35. This traction system was fixed onto the geosynthetic using a metal clamp. An important
specificity of this model is the direction parallel to the liner slope of the tensile force at the anchorage head.
The geotextile remained in contact with the slope, due to a small deformation of the soil in the early stage of
the test.
To limit edge effects, the side walls of the anchorage bench were covered with a smooth, polypropylene
geomembrane. The sand / geomembrane friction angle was about 20. The soil was installed in successive
layers and then compacted.
The tensile force T and the displacement U0 of the traction cable were measured on pulling out via sensors
fixed onto the traction system . In the anchorage zone , a cable measuring system was used to monitor the
displacements of the geosynthetic at different points . The cables could slide through the flexible sleeves
isolating them from the soil, were fixed to the geotextile sheet, and were tensioned using counterweights.
In certain cases, the movement of the soil could be observed thanks to columns of colored sand positioned
in the anchorage zone before starting the test (Figure 37). After the geosynthetic sheet had been pulled out, the
area of the soil directly above the sand columns was meticulously cut into sections to analyze the failure
mechanisms and the displacements of the soil.

136

A frictional cohesive soil (Soil 1 silt: = 34 and c= 11,7 kPa ) and a purely frictional soil (Soil 2
sand := 41 and c= 0) were used .The geosynthetic used for the tests was a non-woven reinforced in one
direction. It had a tensile stiffness modulus J of 624 kN/m (measured at 12% of strain), and the soil
geosynthetic friction angle g was equal to 34 with both soils.
Only the results of the anchor trench with the L-shape carried out with the sand and the silt are
presented here (Figure 42 ).

(a) Sand

(b) Sandy silt

Figure 37. Photos featuring soil displacements, thanks to colored sand, close to a L-shape anchorage bend ,
for two different soils (Cemagref experimentation) .

4.2

Existing design methods

Researchers who have proposed analytical formulas for designing run-out or trench-type anchors ( Koerner
1998; Guide technique 2000) drew on various hypotheses for determining the maximum force Tmax that can be
mobilised in the anchor. Certain hypotheses are common to all the authors, while others vary from one to
another. These hypotheses are summarised below:

Assumptions common to all researchers

- The geometry of the anchor is represented schematically by linear segments (numbered in an increasing
order from the outside towards the inside of the soil mass).
- The anchor fails only by relative displacement at the soil/geosynthetic interface.
- The shear stresses that can be mobilised at the interface are equal to the maximum stresses max
corresponding to the slip limit state (on one or both sides of the geosynthetic).
- Friction is governed by a Mohr-Coulomb interface law: max = n tan g with g and n the friction angle
and normal stress acting at the interface before pull-out.
- The contribution of the ith segment to the total anchorage can be assimilated to a force Fi calculated by
integrating the shear stress of intensity max on either side of that portion of geosynthetic sheet.
Assumptions specific to individual researchers
- Koerner (1998) takes into account a different stress state on the two sides of the L-shaped anchor (Figure
38-Method A).

137

The inclination of the tensile force T1 produces an increase in the normal stress under the first segment of
the anchor. This increase is assumed to be equivalent to the vertical component of T1. This means
increasing the tension that can be mobilised by a factor of 1/[1sin()tan(g)], where is the slope angle
and g the friction coefficient at the interface.
On either side of the vertical segments, the normal stress is the active or passive earth pressure, depending
on the side considered. If it is extrapolated for a 3-segment anchor (L-shape):

Tmax = ii ==13 Fi [1 sin ( ) tan ( )]

(Method A)

- In Guide technique (2000), as shown in ( Figure 38-Method B), it is considered that the tension in the
sheet is multiplied at each change in direction by a factor of e tan g ( being the difference in orientation
between two segments in radians). This exponential factor is derived from an analogy with the friction of
a wire on a cylinder. Implicitly, this means taking into account an increase in the normal stress n at each
bend (refer to the mechanism of Figure 35. Outside the bends, the normal stress at the interface
corresponds to the initial stress state. Finally, for three segments, with Ki being the coefficient associated
with the bend i, one obtains:

Tmax = K 1 [F1 + K 2 (F2 + K 3 F3 )]

(Method B)

It has been learnt from various case studies that some of these hypotheses are only appropriate under
certain conditions. In particular, relative displacements at the interface do not always occur, the friction at
the soil/geosynthetic interface may be only partially mobilised if the failure occurs in the soil, and the
normal stresses acting on the interfaces at failure can be very different from the initial stresses.

H
D

Ka

H
Kp H

Ka

H
H

2 T1 sin() / T1 sin()

Kp (H+D)

T2
T2
K0 H

(method A)

T1 T1

T2

H
K0

T1

T1

K1 = e tan = T1 /
T
(method B)

K0
Figure 38.

K0 (H+D)
Different hypotheses for normal stress state at the interface for L-shape anchor:
Method (A) Koerner (1998), Method (B) Guide Technique (2000).

138

4.3

New analytical model for L-shaped anchors

Consider an L-shaped anchor in a rectangular trench as shown in Figure 38 , Villard et al ,2004 proposes a
new analytical model ,taking into account the complex mechanisms involved during the pull-out of
geosynthetics sheets. In addition (Villard et al , 2004) proposed a numerical modelling of the same problem
based on the Distinct Element Method (D.E.M.) , but it is not presented here.

B
H
D

Block A
Block
B 2

T2

T2

T1
T2

T2
T3

T2

P2

T1
T1

T1

Fh

T3
T3

T3

T3

T3

Figure 39.Notation corresponding to the new analytical model for the anchorage pull-out strength
Lets consider firstly the linear segment (1-2) of the sheet (Figure 39):
The tension T1 is mobilised by friction at the soil/geosynthetic interfaces while the upper layer (Block A)
tends to move at the same time as the sheet.
The static equilibrium of Block A above the sheet can be used to determine the maximum value of T1 . P1
is the weight of the soil above the sheet and Rt the tensile force mobilised in the soil at the end of the anchor.
and t are respectively the unit weight and limit tensile stress in the soil. The forces are expressed per unit
width of the anchor. It should be noted that the strength of the upper layer may be greater than P1tan(g). In
this case, it is assumed that the cover soil remains integral with the soil mass and the force Rt that can be
mobilised is equal to P1tan(g), in conformity with equation [2].
[1]

T1 = P1 tan(g)+ Rt

[2]

Rt = min[H t , P1 tan(g)

The tension T1 required to pull out the sheet (applied parallel to the slope) is obtained by considering the angle
effect. Two failure mechanisms are considered:

139

(A1) Assumption of a rigid soil mass

It is assumed that near the change in direction, the geosynthetic moves in relation to the underlying soil,
which is considered to be fixed. It is therefore assumed that the stress state at the interface verifies
= n tan(g). In this hypothesis, the problem is analogous to that of a wire rubbing against the arc of a
circle(Figure 35). It is thus possible to introduce a weighting coefficient K1, the value of which is given in
equation [3], such that K1 = T1 / T1. It should be noted that this result is obtained by applying the approach
recommended in the Guide technique (2000) to a particular case.
K1 = e tang

[3]

(A2) Assumption of soil mass failure

In this case, it is assumed that the forces acting near the change of angle are likely to shear the soil along
the slip line shown in Figure 40, and that the moving block is sufficiently small for the volume (weight) and
surface (surrounding stress) forces applied to the block to be neglected in relation to T1 and T1. Then,
considering Mohr-Coulombs law of friction along the slipe line, a limit equilibrium of the forces in the
sheared zone yields equations [4] and [5] (with being the internal friction angle of the soil) :

T
R

Figure 40. Assumption of a failure of soil near an anchorage bend

[4]

T1 T1 cos() R sin( + ) = 0

[5]

T1 sin() + R cos( + ) = 0

The most critical angle (the one that minimises the ratio T1 / T1) is zero. The possibility of failure within
the soil mass does not exclude failure at the interface. The predominant mechanism is that which leads to the
lowest ratio.
To summarize, the weighting coefficient K1 can be used to take account the effect of change of direction in the
following way:
for a rigid mass:
[6]
with

T1 = K1 T1
K1 = e tan g

for a mass failure:

[7]
with

T1 = K1* T1
K1* = min [e

tan g

; cos() + sin() tan( ) ]

140

By combining equation [1] with equations [6] or [7], depending on the assumptions made, it is possible to
determine the anchoring capacity for the linear horizontal segment (1-2).
Anchors with multiple changes in orientation
Similar coefficients to those in equations [6] and [7] will be derived associated with each bend. The
variables incorporating this possibility of failure in the soil is indicated with an asterisk:
RL, the sum of the friction values on the upper side of segment (1-2), is a function of the geometry and
characteristics of the soil. It is considered that :
-

If Ht > P1tan, the soil cover (Block A) is sufficiently strong not to be dissociated from the rest of the
soil mass (Block B). During pull-out, it is assumed that RL = P1 tan.
If Ht < P1tan, Block A will be dissociated from the rest of the soil mass after cracking at bend 2.
Given the fact that the anchor is mobilised progressively as the sheet pulled out, the failure of the upper
block of soil will occur before that of the anchor. In this case, only friction at the base of the soil layer
will be considered in determining the anchoring capacity. In this case, it is assumed that RL = 0.

Two failure mechanisms are considered:

(A1) Assumption of a rigid soil mass

In the case of a rigid soil mass, failure involves the relative displacement of the inclusion in relation to the
mass, through slip at the interface. Thus the maximum forces that can be mobilised correspond to the limit
equilibrium state at all points of the soil/geosynthetic interface (i.e. = n tan g). The value of the anchoring
capacity is therefore determined by considering the distribution of the normal stress n on each segment of the
interface.
- Segment 3: At the initial state it is assumed that the weight P2 of Block B of the soil mass rests entirely on
the last segment of the sheet. When the tension in the sheet increases, the action of the geosynthetic at bend
3 results an uplift force on Block B. The vertical component of this uplift force is equal to T3 (Figure 39),
and opposes to weight P2. It results in a reduction in the normal stresses acting on the segment 3 of the
anchor, and the final normal stresses is equal to (P2 T3). Hence, by using the notations in Figure 39, T3 is
given in equation [8}, and the relation between T3 and T3 at the limit slip state is defined in equation [9].
[8]

T3 = 2 (P2 T3 ) tan g

[9]

T3 = K3 T3

Where P2 is the weight of the soil above the sheet ( P2 = B (H+D) ) and K3 is the change-of-angle
coefficient defined as in equation (11): K3 = e /2 tan g.
Thus gives:
[10]

T3 = 2 P2 K3 tan() / [1 + 2 K3 tan() ]

- Segment (2-3): Fh is used to denote the horizontal forces exerted by the soil on the vertical portion of
the sheet. Fh is obtained by equation [11]. The friction force (proportional to Fh) that can be mobilised on
each vertical side is added to T3 to give the tension T2 [12]
[11]

Fh = Ko D (H+D/2)

[12]

T2 = T3 + 2 Fh tan(g)

[13]

T2 = K2 T2

Ko is the earth pressure coefficient at-rest.K2 is the change-of-angle coefficient defined by: K2 = e /2

141

tan g

- Segment (1-2): The proposed mechanism for this part is the same as for the run-out anchor, with Rt = RL T1
[14]

T1 = T2 + P1 tan(g) + RL

[15]

T1 = K1 T1

K1 is the change-of-angle coefficient defined by: K1 = e

tan g

(A2) Assumption of soil mass failure

For the upper bend, the possibility of failure is envisaged by taking the sub-horizontal failure line of Figure
40 as simplifying assumption. This failure scheme, which is similar to that adopted for the failure of a soil
bend but extended to a larger area, was derived from the results of simulations (Chareyre 2003). The stability
of Block C situated between the geosynthetic and the failure line is considered. Complete formulation of
tensile pull-out force in the anchor is presented in (Villard et al, 2004).
4. 4 Interpretation of the large scale experimentations
Comparison of the performed tests is specifically interesting because the interface friction ( g ) is the same
for the two soils (silt and sand) despite their different intrinsic mechanical properties.The results obtained
show that the anchorage capacities are much greater with the sandy silt, despite the similar interface
characteristics .These results show that the soil plays a major role in anchorage mechanisms, and that it is not
enough to take into consideration only the interface friction characteristics when determining anchorage
capacities.

(a)
initial state

(b)
Silt

(c)
Sand

Figure 41 : Simulation of the observed mechanisms during the pull-out experimentation, for cohesive (a) and
cohesionless (b) soils

142

Figure (41) is a simulation by Distinct Element Method of the observations at the end of the two tests after
pull-out of the sheet in the case of the cohesive frictional soil and in the case of the purely frictional soil
respectively. With Silt, there is no major deformation of the soil mass. With Sand, in contrast, there is severe
deformation. This confirms the pertinence of two different mechanisms : for the present conditions, the "rigid
soil mass" assumption (A1) is appropriate for the cohesive frictional soil and the "soil mass failure"
assumption (A2) is appropriate for the purely frictional soil.
The analytical formulations developed previously in ( 4.3 ) are compared in Figure 42 with the available
experimental data ( assumption of a rigid soil mass for Silt and assumption of a soil mass failure for Sand ). It
is noted that the analytical methods provide a good approximation with Tmax. The numerical applications were
carried out with values of K0 derived from the simulations (K0=0.6 in Silt, K0=0.7 in Sand).
In most design methods in the literature, Tmax is considered to be proportional to tan( g) and it is worth
reminding that ( g) is the same for the two soils . Both experimental and analytical results, however, show a
differential behaviour.
On the other hand , values for T
also calculated:

max obtained

by traditional methods ( 4.2 ) for the L-shapeanchorage are

Method (A) : T max = 30.4 kN/m (silt)

Method (B) : T max =107.85 kN/m (silt)

T max = 34.5 kN/m (sand)

T max = 105.6 kN/m (sand)

That is not at all surprising that maximal pull-out forces are poorly dependent of the soil type, since
interface friction is of the same order for the two different soils. The method (B) overestimated significantly
the experimental values. This could be partially attributed to the combination of two assumptions: firstly
neglecting the reduction of the vertical force acting on the last horizontal segment (3-4) (Figure 39) far less
large than the weight P2 ,secondly taking the bend effect (not taken into account by Koerner) which
magnified the pull-out force ( weighting coefficient K ) at every bend .
50

T1 (kN/m)

40

Analytical - =34

method A : T1 = 30,4 kN/m

Experimental - =34

method B : T1 = 107,8 kN/m

30
20
Silt

10
0
0,00

0,05

U 0 (m)

0,10

0,15

0,20

25

T1 (kN/m)

20

method A : T1 = 34,5 kN/m

Experiment - =34 method B : T1 = 105,6 kN/m
Analytical - =34

15
10
Sand

5
0
0,00

0,05

0,10

0,15

U 0 (m)

Figure 42. Experimental pull-out forces for a L-shapeanchorage embedded in two different soils, and
comparison with design methods (A) and (B) and proposed analytical method.

143

USE OF INCLINED PLANE FOR EROSION CONTROL EXPERIMENTATIONS

Erosion Control

Figure 43. Assessment of rain erosion control by geosynthetics

The use of geosynthetics for rain erosion control of civil engineering earth works is increasing (Reiffsteck,
2003). As a matter of fact, geosynthetics manufacturers are likely to propose a very large range of materials,
but previously the civil engineer has to analyse the local conditions of erosion process and to select the best
adapted geosynthetic structure.
At least two problems have to be considered (Faure et al, 1996 ) :
The first problem is to stabilise a significative thickness (several centimeters) of generally vegetative (or
sometimes cohesionless) soil on a steep slope. This problem will be call meso-stability in contrast with the
macro-stability or overall stability of the earthwork.
The second problem is related to the grain and seed stability on the surface of the protection layer
mentioned above.This problem will be call micro-stability. When the meso-stability is linked to static
gravity forces, the micro-stability is related to the well-known erosion solicitations, rainfall splash effect
and runoff. And generally, we need :
- permanent solutions for meso-stability
- temporary solutions (before vegetalisation) for micro-stability.
To participate to erosion control, geosynthetics manufacturers propose many products which can be classified
in three families depending on the functions assumed by the product.
5.1 Classification of geosynthetics for erosion control:
Geocellular Confinement Systems (GCS):
These geocells are cellular confinement systems. The size of this honeycombs structure can be modified
(height and width of the cells). The function is essentially the meso-stability. The geocells prevent any mass
movement of the topsoil layer by providing tensile reinforcement. Anchoring and possibly nailing by pegs
(excepted in case of lining system) increase the sliding stability. On the other hand the geocells, with large
openings face to the rain do not protect against splash effect and the limitation of the runoff will be correlated
to the width of the geocells.
Turf reinforcement mats (TRM):
These geomats have a three-dimensional structure, by association of several grids or random arrangement
of threads (many different structures are available). The thickness is around one ore two centimeters much less
than for geocells, the faces are flats and the apertures are large enough to be easily filled by soil and seeds. As
for geocells, the main target is to stabilise an overlaid topsoil to vegetalize. However it is necessary to take
care of the tensile strength level of these geomats, compatible with the tangential sliding force to equilibrate. If

144

meso-stability is checked, TRM can play a complementary role in the micro-stability in contrast with
geocells : the network of fibers can partially protect against splash-effect and act as a roots net against runoff.
However the quality of the interface between geomat and subsoil (to avoid preferential flow) is a big concern,
and a high flexibility of the mat is required is the subsoil support is not regular
Erosion protection fabric (EPF) :
These materials are often called "Erosion Control Revegetation Mats" (ECRM) but in our opinion, this term
is no enough accurate. The function of the mat is more simple. It is only a superficial protection against
rainfall. The EPF is placed above the seeded subsoil. Its apertures can be smaller than for the TRM above, but
must allow the growth of the plants through the mat. Only low tensile strength is required since meso-stability
of an additive soil layer is not concerned. Variable 2D structures in polymeric or natural constituent are
suitable for this application (grids, wovens, non-wovens,...). But in this case, still more, a close contact
between the fabric and the subsoil is difficult to obtain on account of the lightness of the sheet, in the lack of
soil included inside or above the EPF to make it heavier.
5.2 Specific Inclined Plane for erosion experimentations:
This facility was constructed at the Lirigm in Grenoble (Figure 44). It is composed of an inclined plane (2
meters long and 1 meter wide). Its slope angle can vary between 0 an 60. An element of soil of about 0.30 m
thick can be tested.
An upstream water reservoir allows to observe runoff effects. This runoff water flow is controlled by a
flowmeter upstream.
The rainfall simulator apparatus is made up with 22 pipes (1.30 m long and 0.10 m spaced) in which 264
watering droppers are pined every 0.10 m. The pipes are fixed on a metallic frame interdependent of eccentric
wheels which turn with a variable velocity during the test. So whatever the droppers describe a 0.14 m
diameter circle, the falling drops do not describe always the same circle due to the centrifugal force variations.
The mean size of the drops is about 5 mm, but as the droppers are the same, the drop size distribution is
uniform.
Rainfall simulator
pipes with droppers

Geosynthetic

water
Soil

Runoff

Figure 44. Lirigm rainfall erosion simulator

145

5.3 Erosion control experimentations:

A serie of tests was done with an alluvial soil of the Isre river valley. It is a grey fine sandy silt (70%
smaller than 80 m). Its uniformity coefficient (d60 / d10) is large, about 17.
A rainfall intensity of 100 mm/h was applied during 20 minutes.The splash effect is combined with a runoff of variable intensity.The erosion is characterized by the mass of eroded soil after 20 mn of rainfall.This
type of facility is versatile enough to simulate the principal critical situations for erosion.
The structures tested in the present case are the bare soil without vegetation as reference, a biodegradable
woven geojute, two geomats which are 3D materials with one (T1) or two (T2) plane grids as support and a
shower wavy grid.The sheets are not filled with soil.
The Figure 45 displays the evolution of the erosion (soil mass transported) versus the value of the upper
run-off, for a constant slope = 15 and a constant rainfall.A typical erosion mechanism is demonstrated on
this figure: the erosion due to splash effect is counteracted by the thickness of the run-off water.On the other
hand all the sheets are efficient to reduce the erosion. However the wet geojute loaded by absorbed water is in
these circumstances more efficient than geosynthetics, due to the better conformity of geojute with soil
support. Below the jute ribbons, the soil is well protected. Into the meshes, micro terraces occurred where
water is retained. This water produces an important protection to the rain impact and slows down the water
flow.
The Figure 46 shows that soil erosion does not increase very much between = 15 and = 30.On the
other hand , for =45, there is a significative increase of the erosion for every product. For T1 , which has not
a good contact with soil support, erosion is greater than for bare soil.This demonstrates that high flexibility
combined with sufficient mass per unit area are required to obtain good protection.

6000

Bare soil at 15
T1 at 15
T2 at 15
Jute at 15

Erosion (g/m)

5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
0

220

440

660

880

Runoff (l/h)

Figure 45 . Inclined Plane facility: Soil erosion for a slope = 15 , increasing run-off and different erosion
control products.

146

Erosion (g/m)

7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0

Bare soil
T1
T2
Jute

15

30

45

60

Pente ()
Figure 46. Soil erosion for different slopes, different erosion control technics a run-off of 220 l/h
and a rainfall of 100mm/h.

6 CONCLUSIONS
Stability of Geosynthetic Lining Systems is , for a geotechnical standpoint, a complex matter. Three
geomechanical questions were identified: sliding of the geosynthetic lining system on slope, pull-out strength
of the geosynthetic anchorage at the top of the slope , rain erosion of the cap cover .
Some research programmes on these topics, carried out in France and more specifically in Lirigm-Grenoble
University, are presented. They include laboratory tests and large scale experimentations on actual slopes .An
extensive use of Inclined Plane facilities with different configurations demonstrates the potential profit of this
kind of device.
The observations derived from the tests and their detailed interpretation are really fruitful ,as they highlight
specific local interaction behaviour between soil and geosynthetics, which are not taken into account in
design methods , more particularly wrinkles of the geosynthetics and complex distribution of the real relative
displacements of the components of the Geosynthetic lining system along the slope , realistic value of interface
friction angle , pull-out strength of a L-shape anchorage ,identification of the mechanisms of control of
erosion by geosynthetics from these results, some proposals for alteration of the current design methods are
made.
It s worth noting that, although focused on landfill slope barriers, in most cases the results presented are
also easy to apply for example to road embankments slopes and river banks.

7 REFERENCES
Brianon, L., Girard, H., Poulain, D., and Mazeau, N., Design of anchoring at the top of slopes for
geomembrane lining systems , 2nd European geosynthetics conference, Bologna, Italy, 15-18 October
2000, 2: 645-650 (2000)
Brianon, L., Girard, H. and Poulain D., 2002, "Slope Stability of Lining Systems Experimental Modeling of
Friction at Geosynthetic interfaces", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 20, pp. 147-172
Chareyre, B., Brianon, L., and Villard, P., Theoretical versus experimental modelling of the anchorage
capacity of geotextiles in trenches , Geosynthetics International, 9(2): 97-123, (2000)
Chareyre, B., and Villard, P., Dynamic Spar Elements and DEM in 2D for the modelling of soil-inclusion
problems Journal of Engineering Mechanics ASCE (2004)

147

Faure,Y.H.,Gourc,J.P.,Ratel,A., Use of geosynthetics in slope erosion control, 1st European Conference on

Erosion Control, Barcelona , Spain , (1996)
Feki,N.,Villard,P.,Gourc,J.P.,Chatelet,L.,Gisbert,Th., Comparative long term survey of geosynthetic cap
lining systems, Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Nice , France ,Vol 2 pp
663-666 , (2002)
Giroud J.P., Beech J.F., Stability of soil layers on geosynthetic lining system, Proceedings of Geosynthetic89
Conference , San Diego, USA, (1989)
Gourc ,J.P.,Lalarakotoson,S.,Muller-Rochholz,H.,Bronstein,Z., Friction measurement by direct shearing or
tilting process-development of an European Standard Proceedings of Eurogeo 1,1st European Conference
on Geosynthetics, pp.1039-1046 , Maastricht , Nl (1996)
Gourc J.P., Berroir G., Stock R., Begassa P., Assessment of lining systems behaviour on slopes,
Proceedings of Sardinia 1997, Sixth International Landfill Symposium , Cagliari, Italy, 11 p., (1997)
Gourc,J.P.,Villard,P.,Reyes-Ramirez,R.Feki,N.,Brianon,L.Girard,H. Use of inclined test to assess stress
mobilization of liner on slope ,Proceedings of Kyushu 2001,Symposium on Reinforcement of soils , pp.201205, Kyushu,Japan (2001)
Gourc,J.P.,Reyes Ramirez, R., Dynamic-based interpretation of the interface friction test at the inclined
plane, Geosynthetics International (to be published , Vol.11) (2004)
Guide technique, 2000, Etanchit par gomembranes des ouvrages pour les eaux de ruissellement routier,
co-dit par le SETRA et le LCPC, guide complmentaire, 71p , (in French) , (2000)
Imaizumi, S., Tsuboi, M., Doi, Y., Shimizu, T. and Miyaji, H., Anchorage ability of a geosynthetics liner
buried in a trench filled with concrete, Sixth International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia 97, Cagliari :
Environnemental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italia, 13-17 october 1997, pp. 453-462 , (1997)
Koerner, R.M., Designing with geosynthetics Prentice Hall, Upper Seddle River, New Jersey, USA, Fourth
Edition: 487-494 , (1998)
Koerner R., Hwu B.L. Stability and tension considerations regarding cover soils on geomembrane lined slopes
Geotextiles and Geomembranes , Vol 10, pp. 335-355, (1991)
Lalarakotoson,S.,Villard,P;,Gourc,J.P., Geosynthetic Lining systems reinforced by geosynthetic inclusion
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Geosynthetics , Atlanta,USA , pp.487-490 (1998)
Lala Rakotoson, S.J., Villard, P. and Gourc, J.P., "Shear Strength Characterization of Geosynthetic Interfaces
on Inclined Planes", Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 22, No. 4, pp. 284-291, (1999)
Olivier,F.,Gourc,J.P.,Lopez,S.,Benhamida,S.,Van Wyck.D., Mechanical behaviour of solid waste in a fully
instrumented prototype compression box, Proceedings Sardinia 2003, 9th International Landfill Symposium,
Cagliari , Italy (2003)
Palmeira, E.,Viana,H., Effectiveness of geogrids as inclusions in cover soils of soils of slopes of waste
disposal areas, Geotextiles and Geomembranes,Vol.21, pp 317-337, (2003)
Poulain,D.,Girard,H.,Glaud,V.,Haddane,K.,Stability and anchorage of geosynthetic systems on
slopes :development of a new designing tool, Proceedings of the 3rd European Conference on
Geosynthetics,Eurogeo 3 , (2004)
Reiffsteck,Ph.,Geosynthetiques et controle de lrosion (in French)- 13th Regional Conference African on
Geotechnics, Marrakech, Marocco , (2003)

148

Reyes-Ramirez,R.,Thomas,S.,Feki,N., Stability of different inclined cap liner systems-Landfill field trial ,

Proceedings of Eurogeo 2, 2d European Conference on Geosynthetics, Bologna, Italy,Vol.2,pp. 523-526
(2000)
Reyes Ramirez,R.,Gourc,J.P.,Billet,P., Influence of the friction test conditions on the characterization of the
geosynthetics interfaces ,Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Geosynthetics, Nice , France,
(2002)
Reyes-Ramrez, R. and Gourc, J.P., "Questions Raised Regarding Use of the Inclined Plane in Measuring
Geosynthetic Interface Friction Relationship", Geosynthetics International , Vol.10, (2003)
Soyez B., Delmas Ph., Herr Ch., Berche J.C., Computer evaluation of the stability of composite liners,
Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Geosynthetics , Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 517-522 ,
(1990)
Standard prEN ISO 12957-1, 2001-2002, Geotextile and geotextile-related products Determination of
friction characteristics, Part 1 : Direct shear test, European Committee for standardisation (CEN),
European Standard, Brussels, Belgium (2001-2002)
Standard prEN ISO 12957-2, 2000, Geosynthetic Determination of friction characteristics, Part 2 : Inclined
plane test, European Committee for standardisation (CEN), European Standard, September 2000, Brussels,
Belgium, 11p (2000)
Villard P., Gourc J.P., Feki N.. Anchorage strength and slope stability of a landfill liner, Proceedings of the
Conference Geosynthetics97, Vol. 1, Long Beach, California, USA, March 1997, pp. 453-466 , (1997)
Villard,P.,Gourc,J.P.,Feki,N.,Analysis of geosynthetic lining systems undergoing large deformations,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol 17,pp 17-32, (1999)
Villard,P. Chareyre,B., Design methods for geosynthetic anchor trenches on the basis of true scale
experiments and Discrete Element Modelling , Canadian Geotechnical Journal, (2004)

149