Factors affecting GCL hydration under isothermal conditions

Abstract The hydration of different GCLs from the pore water of the underlying foundation soil is investigated for isothermal conditions at room temperature. Results are reported for three different reinforced (needle punched) GCL products. Both a silty sand (SM) and sand (SP) foundation soil are examined. GCL hydration is shown to be highly dependant on the initial moisture content of the foundation soil. GCLs on a foundation soil with a moisture content close to field capacity hydrated to a moisture content essentially the same as if immersed in water while those on soil at an initial moisture content close to residual only hydrated to a gravimetric moisture content of 30–35%. The method of GCL manufacture is shown to have an effect on the rate of hydration and the final moisture content. The presence or absence of a small (2 kPa) seating pressure is shown to affect the rate of hydration but not the final moisture content. The GCL hydration did not change significantly irrespective of whether a nonwoven cover or woven carrier GCL rested on the foundation soil.

[1]  R. Brachman,et al.  Permeability and internal erosion of a GCL beneath coarse gravel , 2010 .

[2]  F. Gassner.  Field observation of GCL shrinkage at a site in Melbourne Australia , 2009 .

[3]  R M Quigley,et al.  Selected Factors Influencing GCL Hydraulic Conductivity , 1997 .

[4]  Will P. Gates,et al.  Geosynthetic Clay Liners - Is the key component being overlooked? , 2009 .

[5]  W. A. Take,et al.  Water-Retention Behavior of Geosynthetic Clay Liners , 2011 .

[6]  R. Rowe,et al.  Shrinkage characteristics of heat-tacked GCL seams , 2010 .

[7]  R. Rowe.  Advances and remaining challenges for geosynthetics in geoenvironmental engineering applications , 2007, Geotecnia.

[8]  L. E. Bostwick,et al.  Effect of GCL Properties on Shrinkage When Subjected to Wet-Dry Cycles , 2011 .

[9]  Craig H. Benson,et al.  Properties of geosynthetics exhumed from a final cover at a solid waste landfill , 2010 .

[10]  R. Rowe,et al.  Effect of GCL and subgrade type on internal erosion in GCLs under high gradients , 2003 .

[11]  L. Bostwick.  Laboratory study of geosynthetic clay liner shrinkage when subjected to wet/dry cycles , 2009 .

[12]  R. Brachman,et al.  Barrier Systems for Waste Disposal Facilities , 2004 .

[13]  R. Kerry Rowe,et al.  Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) - chemical compatibility by hydraulic conductivity testing and factors impacting its performance , 1997 .

[14]  Dominique Guyonnet,et al.  Performance-based indicators for controlling geosynthetic clay liners in landfill applications , 2009 .

[15]  Craig B. Lake,et al.  Diffusion of sodium and chloride through geosynthetic clay liners , 2000 .

[16]  Dominique Guyonnet,et al.  Swell index, oedopermeametric, filter press and rheometric tests for identifying the qualification of bentonites used in GCLs , 2010 .

[17]  R. K. Rowe,et al.  Anisotropy and directional shrinkage of geosynthetic clay liners , 2010 .

[18]  R. Rowe.  Long-term performance of contaminant barrier systems , 2005 .

[19]  Richard Thiel,et al.  Laboratory measurements of GCL shrinkage under cyclic changes in temperature and hydration conditions. , 2006 .

[20]  M. Chappel,et al.  QUEEN'S COMPOSITE GEOSYNTHETIC LINER EXPERIMENTAL SITE , 2007 .

[21]  R. Rowe,et al.  Swelling characteristics of needlepunched, thermally treated geosynthetic clay liners , 2000 .