Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effect of Crude Oil Contamination on the Behavior of Soil–Geosynthetic Interfaces

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

An extensive series of soil alone and soil–geosynthetic interface tests is organized and degradation of stress–displacement–strength properties following contamination of soil specimens with crude oil is evaluated. To this purpose, soil alone direct shear tests are carried out on one sand and one low plastic clay soil both sampled from south of Iran. The core of the experimental program is dedicated to constant normal load tests on the interfaces between sand and clay soil specimens in contact with a woven geotextile (GTX) and a PVC geo-membrane (GMB). The crude oil-contaminated soil alone and soil–geosynthetic interface tests are performed through homogenously mixing soil specimens with contamination contents (CC) of 2%, 5%, 10%, and 15% by dry weight of soil. Results of the direct shear experiments are compared in terms of the peak (if any), and critical state friction and maximum dilation angles. The results confirm that contamination with crude oil leads to degradation of the peak and critical state friction and dilation angles in the purely frictional sand alone and sand–geosynthetic interface tests. Unlike the sand–geosynthetic interfaces, it is shown that the clay alone and clay–geosynthetic interface specimens behave cohesive–frictional, and notable adhesion intercept terms must be employed in their shear strength envelopes. Increase in CC causes progressive degradation of the friction angle and adhesion intercept in the crude oil-contaminated clay alone and clay–GTX interface tests. Compared to the clay–GTX interfaces, the adhesion intercepts in the crude oil-contaminated clay–GMB interfaces are less sensitive to CC and from a practical view, decrease in friction angle owing to increase in CC appears negligible in the clay–GMB interfaces. Degradation of the friction and adhesion efficiencies with increase in CC for all the soil–geosynthetic interface types is also investigated.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Data are available in the form of excel spreadsheets and available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Ali N, Dashti N, Khanafer M, Al-Awadhi H, Radwan S (2020) Bioremediation of soils saturated with spilled crude oil. Sci Rep 10:1116

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Correia NdS, Portelinha FHM, Mendes IS, da Silva JWB (2020) Lime treatment of a diesel-contaminated coarse-grained soil for reuse in geotechnical application. Int J Geo-Eng 11:8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Karimi AH, Hamidi A (2021) Effect of phytoremediation on geotechnical characteristics of oil contaminated sands. Soil Sediment Contam 30:943–963

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Al-Sanad HA, Eid WK, Ismael NF (1995) Geotechnical properties of oil-contaminated Kuwaiti sand. J Geotech Eng 121(5):407–412

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Al-Sanad HA, Ismael NF (1997) Aging effects on oil-contaminated Kuwaiti sand. J Geotech Eng 123(3):290–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Ostovar M, Ghiassi R, Mehdizadeh MJ, Shariatmadari N (2021) Effect of crude oil contamination on geotechnical specification of sandy soils. Soil Sediment Contam 30:58–73

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Safehian H, Rajabi AM, Gasemzadeh H (2018) Effect of diesel-contamination on geotechnical properties of illite soil. Eng Geol 241:55–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Salimnezhad A, Soltani-Jigheh H, Soorki AA (2021) Effects of oil contamination and bioremediation on geotechnical properties of highly plastic clayey soils. J Rock Mech Geotech Eng 13:653–670

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Al-Adly AIF, Fadhil AI, Fattah MY (2019) Bearing capacity of isolated footing resting on contaminated sandy soil with crude oil. Egypt J Pet 28:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Jewell RA (1985) Limit equilibrium analysis of reinforced soil walls. Int Conf Soil Mech Found Eng 11:1705–1708

    Google Scholar 

  11. Koerner RM, Koerner GR (2013) A data base, statistics and recommendations regarding 171 failed geosynthetic reinforced mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) walls. Geotext Geomembr 40:20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dhanya KA, Vibha S, Divya PV (2023) Coupled flow-deformation analysis of MSE wall reinforced with hybrid geogrids. Int Geosynth Ground Eng 9:45

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Sundaravel V, Deviprasad BSG, Saseendran R, Dodagoudar GR (2023) Stability and serviceability assessment of reinforced earth retaining structures: a state-of-the-art and way forward. Int Geosynth Ground Eng 9:30

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Martin JP, Koerner RM, Whitty JE (1984) Experimental friction evaluation of slippage between geomembranes, geotextiles, and soils. In: Proceedings of international conference on geomembranes. Denver, USA

  15. Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Influential factors of friction between steel and dry sands. Soils Found 26(2):33–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Uesugi M, Kishida H (1986) Frictional resistance at yield between dry sand and mild steel. Soils Found 26(4):139–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Lopes PC, Lopes ML, Lopes MP (2001) Shear behavior of geosynthetics in the inclined plane test-influence of soil particle size and geosynthetic structure. Geosynth Int 8:327–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Koerner RM (2005) Designing with geosynthetics, 5th edn. Pearson Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lings ML, Dietz MS (2005) The peak strength of sand–steel interfaces and the role of dilation. Soils Found 45(6):1–14

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Palmeira EM (2009) Soil–geosynthetic interaction: modeling and analysis. Geotext Geomembr 27:368–390

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Anubhav BPK (2013) Interface behavior of woven geotextile with rounded and angular particle sand. J Mater Civ Eng 25:1970–1974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Vangla P, Latha GM (2015) Influence of particle size on the friction and interfacial shear strength of sands of similar morphology. Int Geosynth Ground Eng. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-014-0008-9. (Article no. 6)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Vangla P, Latha GM (2016) Effect of particle of sand and surface asperities of reinforcement on their interface shear behavior. Geotext Geomembr 44(3):254–268

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Vangla P, Latha GM (2016) Shear behavior of sand–smooth geomembrane interfaces through micro-topographical analysis. Geotext Geomembr 44(4):592–603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Vieira CS, de Lordes LM, Caldeira L (2015) Sand–nonwoven geotextile interface shear strength by direct shear and simple shear tests. Geomech Eng 9(5):601–618

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Vieira CS, Pereira PM, Lopes MdL (2016) Recycled constriction and demolition wastes as filling material for geosynthetic reinforced structures. Interface properties J Clean Prod 124:299–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Afzali-Nejad A, Lashkari A, Shourijeh PT (2017) Influence of particle shape on the shear strength and dilation of sand–woven geotextile interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 45(1):54–66

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Afzali-Nejad A, Lashkari A, Farhadi B (2018) Role of soil inherent anisotropy in peak friction and maximum dilation angles of four sand geosynthetic interfaces. Geotext Geomembr 46(6):869–881

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Markou IN, Evangelou ED (2018) Shear resistance characteristics of soil–geomembrane interfaces. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 4:29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Lashkari A, Jamali V (2021) Global and local sand–geosynthetic interface behavior. Géotechnique 71(4):346–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Lakkimsetti B, Gali ML (2023) Grain shape effects on the liquefaction response of geotextile-reinforced sands. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 9:15

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Shoushtari MR, Lashkari A, Martinez A (2023) Effect of gas-oil contamination on the mechanical behavior of sand–woven geotextile interface: experimental investigation and constitutive modeling. Geotext Geomembr 51(4):56–71

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Shourijeh PT, Rad AM, Bigloo FHB, Binesh SM (2022) Application of recycled concrete aggregates for stabilization of clay reinforced with recycled tire polymer fibers and glass fibers. Constr Build Mater 355:129172

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Keshavarz M (2023) Design and development of jet erosion test (JET) system and evaluating the erodibility of clay soil stabilized with Recycled Concrete Aggregate (RCA). Thesis submitted to the department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Shiraz University of Technology, Iran.

  35. Ladd R (1978) Preparing test specimens using undercompaction. Geotech Test J 1:16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Ishihara K (1993) Liquefaction and flow failure during earthquake. Géotechnique 43(3):351–415

    Article  Google Scholar 

  37. Been K, Jefferies MG (1985) A state parameter for sands. Géotechnique 35(2):99–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Dai BB, Yang J, Zhou CY (2016) Observed effects of interparticle friction and particle size on shear behavior of granular materials. Int J Geomech 16(1):1–11 (04015011)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Muir Wood D (1990) Soil behavior and critical state soil mechanics. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  40. Budhu M (2010) Soil mechanics and foundations, 3rd edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  41. Taylor DW (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  42. Meegoda NJ, Ratnaweera P (1994) Compressibility of contaminated fine-grained soil. Geotech Test J 17(1):101–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Izdebska-Mucha D, Trzcińsk J, Żbik MS, Frost RL (2011) Influence of hydrocarbon contamination on clay soil microstructure. Clay Miner 46:47–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Shiraz Oil Refinery Co., Yektavaragh Polymer Yazd Co., and Behinesazane Sajad Engineering Co. for providing crude oil and geosynthetics used in this research. Authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Shiraz University of Technology, Shiraz, Iran

    Ahmad Feilinejad & Ali Lashkari

Authors
  1. Ahmad Feilinejad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ali Lashkari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

AF: performing experiments. AL: supervision, methodology, experimental program, analysis, manuscript preparation.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ali Lashkari.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors reported no potential conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Figure

Fig. 15
figure 15

Woven geotextile tensile test data in: a machine direction, and b cross-machine direction

Full size image

15 demonstrates mobilization of the tensile strength vs. axial extension (i.e., change in length of GTX from a zero tensile force to the corresponding measured tensile force) of five woven geotextile specimens in machine and cross-machine directions. The tensile strength vs. elongation curves for five PVC geomembrane specimens in machine and cross-machine directions were plotted in Fig.

Fig. 16
figure 16

Geomembrane tensile test data in: a machine direction, and b cross-machine direction

Full size image

16. Of note, elongation is defined as a percentage increase in the GMB length due to tensile force. For both types of geosynthetics, the specimens’ widths were 200 mm.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Feilinejad, A., Lashkari, A. Effect of Crude Oil Contamination on the Behavior of Soil–Geosynthetic Interfaces. Int. J. of Geosynth. and Ground Eng. 9, 86 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00505-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-023-00505-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation