Peak versus residual interface strengths for landfill liner and cover design

T. D. Stark, Hangseok Choi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

15 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The rationale for using peak, residual, or a combination of these shear strengths for the analysis of geosynthetic-lined slopes and design recommendations for landfill liner and cover systems is presented herein. Landfill liner systems using geosynthetics that contain sideslopes are recommended to be designed using the methodology presented by Stark and Poeppel: (1) assign residual shear strengths to the sideslopes and peak shear strengths to the base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than 1.5; and also (2) assign residual strengths to the sideslopes and base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than unity. The authors recommend that the stability of landfill cover systems be analysed using peak shear strengths with a factor of safety greater than 1.5 because of the absence of large detrimental shear displacement along the weakest interface. If, for some reason, the slope angle of the cover system exceeds the friction angle of the weakest interface, or large displacements such as construction-induced displacements or seismically induced displacements are expected, a residual shear strength with a factor of safety greater than unity should be used for the cover design. In both liner and cover designs a peak composite failure envelope that describes the weakest interface should be used to represent the peak shear strength, and the residual failure that corresponds to the peak composite failure envelope should be used instead of the lowest residual failure envelope.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)491-498
Number of pages8
JournalGeosynthetics International
Volume11
Issue number6
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2004 Dec 1
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

landfill liner
Land fill
Shear strength
shear strength
liner
safety
geosynthetics
residual strength
slope angle
Composite materials
landfill
friction
Friction
methodology

Keywords

  • Design
  • Direct shear test
  • Geosynthetics
  • Interface shear resistance
  • Ring shear test
  • Shear strength
  • Slope stability

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geotechnical Engineering and Engineering Geology

Cite this

Peak versus residual interface strengths for landfill liner and cover design. / Stark, T. D.; Choi, Hangseok.

In: Geosynthetics International, Vol. 11, No. 6, 01.12.2004, p. 491-498.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5dee56a650e345ecb1fa7e96c908bbc1,
title = "Peak versus residual interface strengths for landfill liner and cover design",
abstract = "The rationale for using peak, residual, or a combination of these shear strengths for the analysis of geosynthetic-lined slopes and design recommendations for landfill liner and cover systems is presented herein. Landfill liner systems using geosynthetics that contain sideslopes are recommended to be designed using the methodology presented by Stark and Poeppel: (1) assign residual shear strengths to the sideslopes and peak shear strengths to the base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than 1.5; and also (2) assign residual strengths to the sideslopes and base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than unity. The authors recommend that the stability of landfill cover systems be analysed using peak shear strengths with a factor of safety greater than 1.5 because of the absence of large detrimental shear displacement along the weakest interface. If, for some reason, the slope angle of the cover system exceeds the friction angle of the weakest interface, or large displacements such as construction-induced displacements or seismically induced displacements are expected, a residual shear strength with a factor of safety greater than unity should be used for the cover design. In both liner and cover designs a peak composite failure envelope that describes the weakest interface should be used to represent the peak shear strength, and the residual failure that corresponds to the peak composite failure envelope should be used instead of the lowest residual failure envelope.",
keywords = "Design, Direct shear test, Geosynthetics, Interface shear resistance, Ring shear test, Shear strength, Slope stability",
author = "Stark, {T. D.} and Hangseok Choi",
year = "2004",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1680/gein.11.6.491.54391",
language = "English",
volume = "11",
pages = "491--498",
journal = "Geosynthetics International",
issn = "1072-6349",
publisher = "ICE Publishing Ltd.",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Peak versus residual interface strengths for landfill liner and cover design

AU - Stark, T. D.

AU - Choi, Hangseok

PY - 2004/12/1

Y1 - 2004/12/1

N2 - The rationale for using peak, residual, or a combination of these shear strengths for the analysis of geosynthetic-lined slopes and design recommendations for landfill liner and cover systems is presented herein. Landfill liner systems using geosynthetics that contain sideslopes are recommended to be designed using the methodology presented by Stark and Poeppel: (1) assign residual shear strengths to the sideslopes and peak shear strengths to the base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than 1.5; and also (2) assign residual strengths to the sideslopes and base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than unity. The authors recommend that the stability of landfill cover systems be analysed using peak shear strengths with a factor of safety greater than 1.5 because of the absence of large detrimental shear displacement along the weakest interface. If, for some reason, the slope angle of the cover system exceeds the friction angle of the weakest interface, or large displacements such as construction-induced displacements or seismically induced displacements are expected, a residual shear strength with a factor of safety greater than unity should be used for the cover design. In both liner and cover designs a peak composite failure envelope that describes the weakest interface should be used to represent the peak shear strength, and the residual failure that corresponds to the peak composite failure envelope should be used instead of the lowest residual failure envelope.

AB - The rationale for using peak, residual, or a combination of these shear strengths for the analysis of geosynthetic-lined slopes and design recommendations for landfill liner and cover systems is presented herein. Landfill liner systems using geosynthetics that contain sideslopes are recommended to be designed using the methodology presented by Stark and Poeppel: (1) assign residual shear strengths to the sideslopes and peak shear strengths to the base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than 1.5; and also (2) assign residual strengths to the sideslopes and base of the liner system and satisfy a factor of safety greater than unity. The authors recommend that the stability of landfill cover systems be analysed using peak shear strengths with a factor of safety greater than 1.5 because of the absence of large detrimental shear displacement along the weakest interface. If, for some reason, the slope angle of the cover system exceeds the friction angle of the weakest interface, or large displacements such as construction-induced displacements or seismically induced displacements are expected, a residual shear strength with a factor of safety greater than unity should be used for the cover design. In both liner and cover designs a peak composite failure envelope that describes the weakest interface should be used to represent the peak shear strength, and the residual failure that corresponds to the peak composite failure envelope should be used instead of the lowest residual failure envelope.

KW - Design

KW - Direct shear test

KW - Geosynthetics

KW - Interface shear resistance

KW - Ring shear test

KW - Shear strength

KW - Slope stability

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=32044450051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=32044450051&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1680/gein.11.6.491.54391

DO - 10.1680/gein.11.6.491.54391

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:32044450051

VL - 11

SP - 491

EP - 498

JO - Geosynthetics International

JF - Geosynthetics International

SN - 1072-6349

IS - 6

ER -