Geotextiles and Geomembranes 5 (1987) 63-67

Technical Note
A Note on Planar Shear Between Geosynthetics and
Construction Materials

ABSTRACT
The influence of different surface roughnesses on interracial shear between
geosynthetics and various construction materials is discussed. Interracial
shear strength data for different combinations of materials are given.
Derivations of interfacial shear strength from mere characteristic values of
material are only possible to a limited extent. Larger projects demand in situ
tests to determine interfacial shear strengths at the expected operational
normal stress levels.

1 INTRODUCTION
The increasing use of geomembranes and geotextiles in hydraulic structures,
such as revetments, introduces the need to investigate the shear behaviour
at the interface of geosynthetics and other construction materials. Shear
tests p e r f o r m e d on behalf of the VEB Spezialbaukombinat Wasserbau have
p r o d u c e d a series of interesting results and led to the development of a new
shear apparatus described elsewhere.~ In the test program 1.5 mm thick
PVC or PE (polyethylene) film was used to model geomembranes and their
frictional behaviour when shear against other construction materials
including geotextiles. A range of non-woven geotextiles were employed
with various thicknesses and mass per unit area and a brief summary is
presented for the range of results obtained.

2 T H E O R E T I C A L ASPECTS
In broad terms the contact surface between the geosynthetic and the
construction material can be planar or undulating, as shown in Fig. 1.2,3For
63
Geotextiles and Geomembranes 0266-1144/87/$03.50 Elsevier Applied Science Publishers
Ltd, England, 1987. Printed in Great Britain

64

Werner Weiss, Christoph Batereau

~

.,-4-

Fig. 1. Interlocking at the interface between geosynthetics and other construction materials.

construction materials such as pre-cast concrete blocks serrations or

toothing can be introduced to produce mechanical interlocking. Depending
on the nature of the contact surface there may be
(i) friction without deforming or destroying the surfaces of the materials;
(ii) friction with partial or complete destruction of the surface of the
materials.
Clearly, in a given situation, the shear strength of the interface will increase
as the degree of toothing or interlocking increases. The number of variables
affecting interfacial shear strength behaviour shows that the interfacial
shear strength established by test will refer to the specific model case only.
The effects of stress level, surface roughness of prefabricated concrete slabs
and the grading of non-cohesive soil grains respectively have been considered elsewhere. 2'~Theoretical considerations concerning case l(b), Fig. l,
are reported in Ref. (5).
Possible interlocking at the interface of geosynthetics and other construction materials stems from:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)

undulations in bedding material (Fig. l(a));

toothing by coarse contact material on both sides (Fig. l(b));
'embossing' due to normal stress (Fig. l(c));
interlock with angular fill, or rough concrete surfaces, or single
particles.

3 TESTING P R O C E D U R E AND RESULTS

Testing to determine interfacial shear behaviour was carried out using a
specially constructed fiat shear device 1which was load (stress) controlled.
Loading was applied in twenty increments until failure occurred. Normal

Technical note

65

stresses in the range 5 kPa to 50 kPa were employed to both dry and saturated
samples. The interlocking effects shown in Fig. l(a) and (b) were not considered since the geosynthetics were mounted in a planar surface in the shear
apparatus. In practice there are undulations in bedding and fill material
which give rise to a higher shear strength than the characteristic values
obtained from the above laboratory testing. Consequently design based on
these characteristic values may be conservative. Another factor not
accounted for in the laboratory tests is creep in the geosynthetic. However
creep determinations are likely to be small and are therefore neglected.
Tables 1 to 3 present the observed range of interracial shear strength
values of frequently used material combinations. Table 4 describes the
properties of geotextiles used in the tests.
Field observations indicated that slopes with a design factor of safety of
unity, based on the above characteristic coefficients, were stable. This
confirms the case for in situ testing of actual systems to determine the
prevailing shear characteristics.

TABLE 1
Coefficients of lnterfacial Shear Between Smooth Polyethylene Film and Different
Construction Materials
Material in contact with

Coefficients of interracialshear

PE I~lm

Geotextiles (non woven)

Silt
Sand
Prefabricated concrete slab

Dry

Saturated

0.20--0.25
-0.25--0-45
0-30--0.40

0.16
0.30-0-40
0.20-0.40
0.25-0.40

TABLE 2
Coefficients of Interracial Shear Between Smooth PVC Film and Different Construction
Materials
Material in contact

with

Coefficients of interfacial shear

PVC film

Non woven
Silt
Sand
Prefabricated concrete slab

Dry

Saturated

0-30-0.45
-0-50-0.60

0-25--0.45
0.35--0.50
0.40--0.50

0.50-1.00

0-50-1.00

66

Werner Weiss, Christoph Batereau

TABLE 3
Coefficients of Interracial Shear Between Non-woven Geotextiles and Different
Construction Materials
Material in contact with
non-woven geotextile

Coefficients of interracial shear

(saturated)

Non-woven geotextile
(depends on kind of fibres)
Prefabricated concrete slab
Smooth
Rough
Non-cohesive soil (d~ = 63/~m)
d~o = 0.2-2.0 mm
d~o = 2.0-5-0 mm
d~o = 5.0-10.0 mm

0.27--0-40

0.45-0.60
0-60--0.80
0.70
0.60
0-50

The non-cohesive soil comprises smooth rounded particles.

TABLE 4
Properties of Geotextiles Used in the Tests
Thickness a
(mm )

Pore diameter
090
(turn)

Polymer fibre

WT 5

2-7

0-07

WT 6

3.4

0.06

P 10
Testmat 1
Testmat 2
Testmat 3

5.2
3-1
3.2
3.2

0.25

50% polyester
50% polyvinyl chloride
50% polyester
50% polyvinyl chloride
100% polyamide
100% polyamide
100% polyester
100% polyvinyl chloride

Designation

aUnder a vertical stress of 20 kN/m 2.

CONCLUSIONS
L a b o r a t o r y tests using p l a n a r g e o s y n t h e t i c s s h e a r e d against v a r i o u s
c o n s t r u c t i o n m a t e r i a l s allow t h e following c o n c l u s i o n s to b e d r a w n :
(i) F r i c t i o n coefficients g i v e n in the T a b l e s c a n b e u s e d f o r r o u g h
c a l c u l a t i o n s in t h e n o r m a l stress r a n g e o f 5 to 50 k P a .
(ii) T h e c o m b i n a t i o n s o f m a t e r i a l s t e s t e d in t h e l a b o r a t o r y w e r e o f
l i m i t e d e x t e n t o n l y a n d t h e r e f o r e in situ tests w o u l d b e n e c e s s a r y to
c o n f i r m initial design a s s u m p t i o n s .

Technical note

67

(iii) In situ tests should be carried out at normal stress levels prevailing
in the finished works. Extrapolation beyond the range of normal
stresses should only be to a limited extent. 2

REFERENCES
I. Batereau, Ch., Bestimmung der Grenzfl~ichenscherfestigkeit zwischen
Kunststoff und Lockergestein. Bauinformation Wissenschaft und Technik, 25(3)
(1982) 27-8.
2. Batereau, Ch., Zur Normalspannungsabh/ingigkeit der Grenzfl/ichenscherfestigkeit. Neue Bergbautechnik, 12(9) (1982) 506-8.
3. Richter, H.-Ch., Gleit- und Scherverhalten ebener und unebener mechanisch
wirksamer Trennfl/ichen. Zeitschrift far angewandte Geologie, 18(6) (1972)
258-62.
4. Formazin, J. and Batereau, Ch., Das Scherfestigkeitsverhalten unterschiedlicher Materialien an der Oberfl~iche von Geotextilien. Proc. Int. Conf. of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, San Francisco, 5(2) (1985) 1773-5.
5. Lysenko, V. P., Zur Frage des Reibungsmechanismus nichtbindiger B6den auf
polymeren Dichtungsbahnen von Erdbauwerken. Mitteilungen des VNIIG
Leningrad (1977) 119.

Werner Weiss and Christoph Batereau

Hochschule fiir Architektur und Bauwesen Weimar,
Karl-Marz-Platz 2,
53 Weimar,
German Democratic Republic