BEARING CAPACITY OF HYDRATED GEOSYNTHETIC

CLAY LINERS

By Robert M. Koerner, I Honorary Member, ASCE,

and Dhani Narejo2

ABSTRACT: Concern has been expressed about the bearing capacity of hydrated geo-
synthetic clay liners (CGLs), with respect to the possibility of the various products de-
creasing in thickness and thereby sacrificing their low as-manufactured hydraulic con-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

ductivity properties. This experimental study shows that, with adequate cover soil placement
before loads are applied, this possibility can be avoided. Traditional design of the cover
soil thickness with respect to anticipated loadings, followed by proper installation pro-
cedures, should be followed when utilizing GCLs.

INTRODUCTION
Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are relatively thin layers of processed clay (typically bentonite)
placed between geotextiles, or bonded onto a geomembrane. They are typically 7-10 mm thick
in their hydrated state. From the viewpoint of a structural system, GCLs are either adhesively
bonded, needle-punched throughout the product, or stitch-bonded in the machine direction of
the roll. There is a steadily growing body of published information available that pertains to
GCLs, as well as relevant literature from all of the GCL manufacturers [see Estornell and Daniel
(1992), and Daniel and Boardman (1993)].
This technical note is focused on the bearing capacity of hydrated GCLs. The concern is
understandable since hydrated bentonite often exhibits extremely low shear strength (Daniel
1993; Koerner and Daniel 1994). To avoid lateral squeezing of the bentonite from beneath a
vertically applied load, one must adequately backfill over the GCL before it hydrates and before
concentrated loads are applied and sustained. The thickness of cover soil over the GCL is
obviously a critical matter in this regard.
The experimental design of this study uses three different commercially available GCLs in
their hydrated states, being contained in a California Bearing Ratio (CBR) mold. Controlled
rate of compression tests were performed on the products by themselves and then were performed
on replicate specimens with varying depths of sand cover. The resulting load-deformation re-
sponse curves are compared to one another. As will be seen, the visual appearance of the
exhumed GCLs is also of interest and compares favorably with the load-deformation response
curves.

EXPERIMENTAL SETUP
Three types of commercially available GCLs were used in this study. GCL-I consists of an
adhesive-bonded bentonite between two geotextiles. There are no yarns or fibers extending
between the upper and lower geotextiles, which is typical of Claymax 200R and, for this type
of test, Gundseal as well. GCL-2 consists of bentonite powder that is contained by needle-
pinching with a high density of fibers extending from the upper geotextile through the bentonite
and the lower geotextile. This is typical of Bentomat and Bentofix. GCL-3 consists of bentonite
powder that is contained by stitch-bonding in the machine direction connecting the upper and
lower geotextiles, which is typical of Ciaymax 500SP and NaBento. The stitched rows for this
material are at 25-mm spacings.
The various GCLs just described were hydrated in a l50-mm-diameter CBR mold under a
light seating load of 0.68 kPa. The entire unit with porous upper and lower platens was submerged
in a water bath for 24 h. This type of hydration is actually a proposed field conformance test
method used to quantify the amount of swelling of a GCL. It is under review in ASTM Committee
035.04. After the 24 h hydration period, the seating load was removed, the entire unit was
placed in a compressing testing machine, and a 50-mm-diameter piston was applied to the GCL
at a load rate of 0.25 mm/min. Fig. lea) shows the before, and Fig. l(b) the after, cross section
with the load piston placed directly on the surface of a GCL. The load-deformation response
of each of the GCLs was measured accordingly.
'H. L. Bowman Prof. ofCiv. Engrg. and Dir., Geosynthetic Rcs. Inst.. Drexcl Univ .. Philadclphia, PA 19104.
'Manager. J&L Tcsting Co .. Cannonsburg. PA.
Note. Discussion open until Junc I, 1995. To extcnd thc closing date one month. a written requcst must bc
filed with the ASCE Manager of Journals. The manuscript for this tcchnical note was submitted for review and
possible publication on June 8. 1994. This technical notc is part of the Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. Vol.
121. No. I. January. 1995. ©ASCE. ISSN 0733-9410/95/0001-0082-0085/$2.00 + $.25 per page. Technical Note
No. 8623.

82 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1995, 121(1): 82-85

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

1.....1 1 - - - 150mm ~I
(a) (b)

I... 150mm ~I
(c) (d)

FIG. 1. Experimental Setup for Bearing Capacity Tests on Hydrated GCls: (a) Before and (b) After Cross
Sections for load Imposed Directly on GCl; (c) Before and (d) After Cross Sections for Adequate Sand
Cover above GCl

The tests on the three unprotected GCLs were then repeated on new GCL test specimens
using a 15-mm-thick layer of well-graded sand placed between the upper surface of the GCL
and the load piston. Fig. l(c) shows the cross section and the location of the sand layer. In a
bearing capacity context, this is a height-to-breadth ratio (HI B) of 15/50, or 0.30. Upon com-
pletion of this series of tests, the sand covering the GCL was increased to a height of 25 mm;
thus the ratio of HIB was 0.50. A fourth and last series of tests was then performed with the
sand covering layer at a height of 50 mm, so that the ratio of HIB was 1.0. At this point, the
mode of failure occurred entirely within the sand layer as illustrated in Fig. l(d). In total, four
series of tests were performed on three different types of GCLs, for a total of 12 tests.

TEST RESULTS
The visual appearance of the exhumed GCLs after the individual tests were concluded is
shown in Fig. 2. Here the three different types of GCLs can be seen at each of the four conditions
described previously, i.e., without sand cover and then with sand cover at HIB values of 0.30,
0.50, and 1.0. With no sand covering the GCLs, the hydrated bentonite was laterally squeezed
out from beneath the load piston for all types of GCLs. There was very little bentonite remaining
in the area directly beneath the load piston. However, as a sand layer was placed above the
GCLs with gradually increasing thickness, a height was reached at which no deformation or
squeezing of bentonite within the GCLs was observed for any of the products. This height was
seen to be at a value of 50 mm, which is equivalent to an HIB value of 1.0. The bentonite
thickness was essentially the same as it was at the beginning of the test. Between these two

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 83

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1995, 121(1): 82-85

 0.6

0.5
o HIB=O.OO
• HIB=O.30
Z 0.4
x HIB=O.50
(a) e-
..,eo 0.3 c HIB=1.00

0
...:I 0.2
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Penetration (mm)

(a)

0.6

0.5
(b) 0 HIB=O.OO
Z 0.4
•x HIB=O.30
e-
.., 0.3
HIB=O.50
C HIB=l.OO
eo
0
...:I 0.2

0.1

5 10 15 20
Penetration (mm)
(b)
0.6

0.5
(e)
Z 0.4
e-
.., 0.3 0 HIB=O.OO
'"0
...:I 0.2
•x HIB=O.30
HIB=O.50
c HIB=l.OO
0.1

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
Deformation (mm)
(e)

FIG. 3. Response Curves of GCl Bear-

FIG. 2. Exumed GCl Test Specimens after Bearing Ca- ing Capacity Tests in CBR Setup: (a) GCl-
pacity Testing in a CBR Setup: (a) GCl-1: Adhesive-Bonded; 1: Adhesive-Bonded; (b) GCl-2: Needle-
(b) GCl-2: Needle-Punched; (c) GCl-3 Stitch-Bonded Punched; (c) GCl-3: Stitch-Bonded

extremes of no sand covering and HIB = 1.0, the products behave slightly differently, with the
needle-punched GCLs indicating only minor deformation at an HIB value of approximately
0.50.
The resulting load-deflection curves of the 12 tests that were conducted corroborate the visual
findings just described. Fig. 3(a), for the adhesive-bonded GCL-I, shows an abrupt change in
response between HI B values of 0.50 and 1.0. Bearing-capacity failure via squeezing of the
bentonite was seen for the tests at HI B values of 0.0, 0.30, and 0.50, while a general shear
failure was entirely contained within the sand layer at an HI B value of 1.0. GCL-I was not
influenced at all for the applied load at an HIB value of 1.0.
Fig. 3(b), for the needle-punched GCL-2, shows a somewhat "stiffer" response for all tests
with a subtle difference in response between tests at HIB of 0.30 and 0.50. The trends have
some anomalous behavior in that the HIB = 0.50 curve appeared to fail abruptly and there was
a crossover of trends between the 0.0 and 0.30 response curves. Most importantly, however,
was that GCL-2 was not influenced at all for the applied load at an HI B value of 1.0. The visual
identification of the exhumed test specimens in Fig. 2(b) substantiates this behavior.
Fig. 3(c), for the stitch-bonded GCL-3, indicates a behavior intermediate between the ad-
hesive-bonded and needle-punched GCLs. Close observation of Fig. 2(c) shows that the hydrated
bentonite could not move freely in a direction perpendicular to the rows of stitch bonding, but
could move parallel to the stitching direction. As with the other tests, GCL-3 was not influenced
at all for the applied load at an HIB value of 1.0.

84 JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1995, 121(1): 82-85

 SUMMARY
The concern over the hydrated bentonite contained in GCLs being laterally squeezed out of
the materials by concentrated loads was addressed in this technical note. Loading was achieved
using a constant rate of deformation load press, although it is recognized that a constant stress
(creep) test would also be an alternative test. What the results of these tests show is that hydrated
GCLs will lose their bentonite by lateral squeezing if a load is applied directly on top of them.
To protect against such bentonite loss, a suitably thick layer of cover soil is needed. For these
tests, a soil thickness at least equal to the diameter of the load piston was required. Thus, an
HIB ratio of 1.0 was seen to be adequate in all cases and for all of the GCLs evaluated. This
includes nonstructured, needled, and stitch-bonded GCLs. By having such a soil covering layer,
a potential bearing capacity failure would be entirely contained within the covering soil and the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Pontificia Universidad Catolica del Peru on 08/04/24. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

underlying GCL would not be affected. Obviously, the cover soil should be designed accordingly.
As with all geosynthetics, such soil covering layers must be site-specifically designed and then
be followed by proper installation and monitoring in the field. In this way, the various GCL
products can function as they are designed and intended.

APPENDIX. REFERENCES
Daniel, D. E., and Boardman, B. T. (1993). "Report on workshop on geosynthetic clay liners." Rep. No. EPA/
600/R-93/171, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Daniel, D. E. (1993). "Geosynthetic clay liners in landfill covers." 31st Annu. Proc., SWANA Conf, San Jose,
Calif., 348- 364.
Estornell, P., and Daniel, D. E. (1992). "Hydraulic conductivity of three geosynthetic clay liners." 1. Geotech.
Engrg., ASCE, 118(10), 1592-1606.
Koerner, R. M., and Daniel, D. E. (1994). "Technical equivalency assessment of GCLs to CCLs." Proc., 7th
GRI Conf, Industrial Fabrics Assoc. Int. (IFAI) Pub!., St. Paul, Minn., 265-285.

JOURNAL OF GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 85

J. Geotech. Engrg., 1995, 121(1): 82-85