Geotechnical and Geological Engineering

, Volume 35, Issue 2, pp 871–878 | Cite as

Combined Shear and Seepage Characteristics for Selecting Drainage Layer in Near Surface Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility

  • Sudheer Kumar Yamsani
  • Sreedeep Sekharan
  • Ravi R. Rakesh
Technical note


Several near surface disposal facilities (NSDF) and engineered landfills necessitate well designed multi-layered barrier (MLB) for minimizing the interaction of waste with the groundwater and atmosphere. These MLBs are provided below and above the wastes as liners and covers, respectively. Drainage layers in MLBs, helps to collect and divert infiltrating rain water or leachate there by reducing hydraulic head and downward seepage or infiltration rate. Improper design considerations, clogging by fines, insufficient capacity, and inadequate shear strength of aggregates used in drainage layer can cause its failure. Shear strength and seepage characteristics play a prominent role in the design of drainage layer of MLB. The objective of this study is to understand the effect of variation in particle size and relative density of aggregates on the shear strength and seepage characteristics. It was observed that with an increase in particle size, both permeability and shear strength increases. The relative density was found to significantly influence shear strength only but not permeability. The study recommends a more robust procedure for identifying appropriate aggregates in drainage layers based on combined shear strength and seepage characteristics. By considering both shear strength and seepage characteristics, a relative density of around 60% was found to be optimal for the higher sized aggregate used in drainage layer of MLB.


Aggregate Particle size Relative density Shear strength Seepage Multi-layered barrier Near surface disposal facility 



Aggregates of particle size between 12.5 and 10 mm


Aggregates of particle size between 10 and 8 mm


Aggregates of particle size between 8 and 6.3 mm


Multi-layered barrier


Near surface disposal facility



Authors would like to thankfully acknowledge board of research in nuclear sciences (BRNS), Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), India, for funding this research work through the research Project No. 2013/36/06-BRNS.


  1. Anderson WF, Fair P (2008) Behavior of railroad ballast under monotonic and cyclic loading. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 134(3):316–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arora KR (2009) Soil mechanics and foundation engineering. Standard Publishers and Distributors, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  3. Arslan H, Baykal G, Sture S (2009) Analysis of the influence of crushing on the behavior of granular materials under shear. Granul Matter 11(2):87–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. ASTM C131, C131M (2014) Standard test method for resistance to degradation of small-size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in the los angeles machine. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  5. ASTM D2434–68 (2006) Standard test method for permeability of granular soils (Constant Head). ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  6. ASTM D3080, 3080M (2011) Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  7. ASTM D4254 (2000) Standard test methods for minimum index density and unit weight of soils and calculation of relative density. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  8. ASTM D5567 (1994) Standard test method for determining Hydraulic conductivity ratio of soil/geotextile systems. ASTM International, West ConshohockenGoogle Scholar
  9. Aydilek AH, Madden ET, Demirkan MM (2006) Field evaluation of a leachate collection system constructed with scrap tires. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 132(8):990–1000CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brachman RWI, Gudina S (2008) Gravel contacts and geomembrane strains for a GM/CCL composite liner. Geotext Geomembr 26(6):448–459CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brachman RWI, Sabir A (2010) Geomembrane puncture and strains from stones in an underlying clay layer. Geotext Geomembr 28(4):335–343CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Casagrande A, Shannon WL (1948) Research on stress-deformation and strength characteristics of soils and soft rocks under transient loading. Soil Mechanics Series No. 31. Harvard University, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  13. Cedergren HR (1989) Seepage, drainage, and flow nets. Wiley, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  14. Dickinson S, Brachman RWI (2003) Thickness of a GCL beneath a geomembrane wrinkle and coarse gravel backfill under large pressure. In: 56th Canadian geotechnical conference, Winnipeg, MB, pp. 465–472Google Scholar
  15. Dickinson S, Brachman RWI (2006) Deformations of a geosynthetic clay liner beneath a geomembrane wrinkle and coarse gravel. Geotext Geomembr 24(5):285–298CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dickinson S, Brachman RWI (2010) Permeability and internal erosion of a GCL beneath coarse gravel. Geosynthetics Int 17(3):112–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Forrester K (2001) Drain construction materials. Subsurface drainage for slope stabilization. ebooks. ASCE Press, Reston, pp 101–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hardin BO (1985) Crushing of soil particles. J Geotech Eng ASCE 111(10):1177–1192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Indraratna B, Sun QD, Nimbalkar S (2014) Observed and predicted behaviour of rail ballast under monotonic loading capturing particle breakage. Can Geotech J 52(1):73–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. IS 11209 (1985) Specification for mould assembly for determination of permeability of soils. Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak BhawanGoogle Scholar
  21. IS 2720 Part 13 (1986) Methods of test for soils: direct shear test for soils. Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak BhawanGoogle Scholar
  22. IS 2720 Part 36 (1987) Methods of test for soils: laboratory determination of permeability of granular soil (Constant Head). Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak BhawanGoogle Scholar
  23. IS 2720 Part 39 (1977) Methods of test for soils: direct shear test for soil containing gravel. Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak BhawanGoogle Scholar
  24. Ishihara K (1996) Soil behaviour in earthquake geotechnics. Oxford Science Publications, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  25. Islam MN, Siddika A, Hossain B, Rahman A, Asad MA (2011) Effect of particle size on the shear strength behavior of sands. Aust Geomech 46(3):75–86Google Scholar
  26. ITRC (Interstate Technology and Regulatory Council) (2003) Technical and regulatory guidance for design, installation, and monitoring of alternative final landfill covers. Accessed April 2, 2016
  27. Jesionek KS, Dunn RJ (1995) Landfill final covers: a review of California practice. In: Landfill closures environmental protection and land recovery, ASCE 51–61Google Scholar
  28. Koerner RM, Daniel DE (1997) Final covers for solid waste landfills and abandoned dumps. ASCE Press, Reston VirginiaCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Koerner R, Koerner G, Hsuan Y (2005) Lifetime prediction of exposed geomembranes. Geosynthetics research and development in progress, Geofrontiers 2005, ASCE 1–5Google Scholar
  30. Li XS, Dafalias YF (2000) Dilatancy for cohesionless soils. Geotechnique 50(4):449–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Merry SM, Kavazanjian E Jr, Fritz WU (2005) Reconnaissance of the July 10, 2000, Payatas landfill failure. J Perform Constr Fac ASCE 19(2):100–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. MoRTH (Ministry of Road, Transport and Highways (2013) Specifications for road and bridge works. Indian Roads Congress, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  33. Nair RN, Krishnamoorthy TM (1999) Probabilistic safety assessment model for near surface radioactive waste disposal facilities. Environ Model Softw 14(5):447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Ramsey B, Narejo D (2005) Using woven and heat-bonded geotextiles in geonet geocomposites. Waste Contain Remed, Geofrontiers 2005, ASCE 1–8Google Scholar
  35. Reddy KR, Stark TD, Marella A (2009) Beneficial use of shredded tires as drainage material in cover systems for abandoned landfills. Pract Period Hazard, Toxic, Radioact Waste Manag ASCE 14(1):47–60CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Richardson GN (1992) Construction quality management for remedial action and remedial design of waste containment systems. Eros control 2:13Google Scholar
  37. Rowe RK (2005) Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems. Geotechnique 55(9):631–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowe RK, Quigley RM, Brachman RWI, Booker JR (2004) Barrier systems for waste disposal facilities. E&FN Spon, LondonGoogle Scholar
  39. Skempton AW, Bishop AW (1950) The measurement of the shear strength of soils. Geotechnique 2(2):90–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Skinner GD, Rowe RK (2005) Design and behaviour of a geosynthetic reinforced retaining wall and bridge abutment on a yielding foundation. Geotext Geomembr 23(3):234–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Stormont JC (1995) The performance of two capillary barriers during constant infiltration. In: Landfill closures environmental protection and land recovery, ASCE 77–92Google Scholar
  42. Tao M, Abu-Farsakh M, Zhang Z (2008) Optimize drainable unbound aggregate through laboratory tests. Characterization, Monitoring, and Modeling of Geosystems, Proc GeoCongress 2008, ASCE 28–35Google Scholar
  43. Tatsuoka F, Enomoto T, Kiyota T (2006) Viscous property of geomaterial in drained shear. In: Geomechanics II test model simulation ASCE 285–312Google Scholar
  44. Tedder R (2005) Use of geosynthetic drainage materials at landfills in florida. In: Waste contain remediation ASCE 1–7Google Scholar
  45. USDOE (2000) Alternative landfill cover, Innovative technology summary report, United States Department of Energy, DOE/EM-0558Google Scholar
  46. USEPA (1989) Requirements for hazardous waste landfill design, construction, and closure. Seminar publication, EPA/625/4-89/022Google Scholar
  47. USEPA (2015) Draft environmental guidelines solid waste landfills. EPA 2015/0111.
  48. Yamsani SK, Sreedeep S, Rakesh RR (2016) Frictional and interface frictional characteristics of multi-layer cover system materials and its impact on overall stability. Int J Geosynthetics Ground Eng 2(3):23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Yu Y, Rowe RK (2012) Effect of grain size on service life of MSW landfill drainage systems. Can Geotech J 50(1):1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Zornberg J, Byler B, Knudsen J (2004) Creep of geotextiles using time-temperature superposition methods. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 130(11):1158–1168CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sudheer Kumar Yamsani
    • 1
  • Sreedeep Sekharan
    • 1
  • Ravi R. Rakesh
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology GuwahatiAssamIndia
  2. 2.CE&QAS/Nuclear Recycle GroupBhabha Atomic Research CentreTrombayIndia

Personalised recommendations