4.6 Article

Cyclic shear behavior of GMB/GCL composite liner

期刊

GEOTEXTILES AND GEOMEMBRANES
卷 49, 期 3, 页码 593-603

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.11.006

关键词

Geosynthetics; Geomembrane; Geosynthetic clay liner; Cyclic shear test; Dynamic shear strength

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [41725012, 41931289]
  2. CETCO in Suzhou, China
  3. GSE in Suzhou, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dynamic shear mechanism of the composite liner system consisting of GMB and GCL is not clear due to limited dynamic test data. Results from cyclic shear tests suggest that the dynamic peak strength of the composite liner can generally be predicted with its static strength envelope. Proposed equations help accurately model the cyclic shear behavior, describing the dynamic softening mechanism and rate-dependent shear stiffnesses.
The composite liner system consisting of geomembrane (GMB) and geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) has been widely used in landfills. Although there have been a lot of studies on the monotonic shear behavior of GMB/GCL composite liner, the dynamic test data are still very limited and consequently, the dynamic shear mechanism is not clear. A series of displacement-controlled cyclic shear tests were conducted to study the shear behavior of GMB/GCL composite liner, including the shear stress versus horizontal displacement relationships, backbone curves, and shear strengths. Hysteretic loops in the shape of parallelogram were obtained and equivalent linear analyses revealed that the secant shear stiffness decreased and the damping ratio increased with the rise in loading cycles. According to the test results, it is generally acceptable to predict the dynamic peak strength of a GMB/GCL composite liner with its static strength envelope. Furthermore, the dynamic softening mechanism and rate-dependent shear stiffnesses were well described by the proposed equations, which also facilitate the accurate modeling of the cyclic shear behavior.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据