Investigation of the PVC Geomembrane-Sand Interface Behaviour using the Discrete Element Method (DEM)

Year 2026, Volume: 22 Issue: 1, 154 - 162, 30.03.2026

Mohammad Bairoti , Hasan Fırat Pulat , Muath S. Talafha

https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1783279

https://izlik.org/JA82SH98RB

Abstract

Synthetic polymer-based geosynthetics are widely preferred construction materials in geotechnical engineering for their effectiveness in reinforcing soil structures, controlling erosion, and improving drainage systems. They have many applications, such as landfills, footings, retaining walls, tunnels, and ponds. A detailed examination of their interaction with surrounding surfaces is necessary for geosynthetics to function correctly. This investigation investigates interface shear behaviour between polyvinyl chloride (PVC) geomembrane and granular soil. A 1.5- and 3.0-mm thick PVC geomembrane is tested using a cylindrical direct shear test (DST) via the discrete element method (DEM) using a shear box specimen chamber (radius: 52 mm, height: 75 mm). The experiments were first carried out with only the granular soil type; the soil's shear strength and internal friction angles were obtained. The lower jaw of the shear box was filled with a concrete block, and the geomembrane was then placed on the block surface. By putting soil in the upper jaw of the shear box, the soil–geomembrane contact was defined as the shear surface. The testing program included normal stresses of 12.5, 25, and 50 kPa combined with shear rates of 0.5, 1, and 2 mm/s to evaluate geomembrane behavior. According to DEM simulations, the interface friction angle of PVC–soil with a 1.5 mm thickness is 49%, 53.6%, and 58.2% lower than that of granular soil tested under shear rates of 0.5, 1, and 2 mm/s, respectively. For a thickness of 3.0 mm, the corresponding reductions are 47.7%, 51.2%, and 55.8%. These results, which ranged from one-third to two-thirds of the friction angle, were considered reasonable. Also, the results show that the change in shear rate has a minimal effect on the interface friction angle compared to what is observed in laboratory experiments.

Keywords

Discrete Element Method (DEM) , geomembrane , geosynthetic , polyvinyl chloride (PVC) , shear behaviour.

References

• [1]. Wu, H., Zhang, Z., Li, C., Zhao, T., & Wang, Y. (2020). Review of application and innovation of geotextiles in geotechnical engineering. Materials, 13(7), Article 1774. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma13071774.
• [2]. Shukla, S. (2021). Geosynthetics and ground engineering: Sus-tainability considerations. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 7, Article 10. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-021-00256-z
• [3]. Whittle, A. J., & Ling, H.-I. (2002). Geosynthetics in construction. In K. H. J. Buschow, R. W. Cahn, M. C. Flemings, B. Ilschner, E. J. Kramer, S. Mahajan, & P. Veyssière (Eds.), Encyclopedia of materi-als: Science and technology (pp. 1–13). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043152-6/01801-5
• [4]. Stark, T. D., Choi, H., & Diebel, P. W. (2005). Influence of plasti-cizer molecular weight on plasticizer retention in PVC geomembranes. Geosynthetics International, 12(2), 99–110. https://doi.org/10.1680/gein.12.2.99.61188
• [5]. Blanco, M., Castillo, F., Soriano, J., Noval, A. M., & Touze, N. (2012, September). Comparative study of three different kinds of geomembranes (PVC-P, HDPE, EPDM) used in the waterproofing of reservoirs. In Eurogeo 5, Valencia, Spain (pp. 46–54). Available at HAL-00763745
• [6]. Tuna, S. C., & Altun, S. (2012). Mechanical behaviour of sand-geotextile interface. Scientia Iranica, 19(4), 1044–1051. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scient.2012.06.009
• [7]. Chen, W. B., Xu, T., & Zhou, W. H. (2021). Microanalysis of smooth geomembrane–sand interface using FDM–DEM coupling simulation. Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 49(1), 276–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2020.10.022
• [8]. Fishman, K. L., & Pal, S. (1994). Further study of the geomem-brane/cohesive soil interface shear behavior. Geotextiles and Ge-omembranes, 13(9), 571–590. https://doi.org/10.1016/0266-1144(94)90011-6
• [9]. Dove, J. E., & Frost, J. D. (1999). Peak friction behavior of smooth geomembrane-particle interfaces. Journal of Geotechnical and Ge-oenvironmental Engineering, 125(7), 544–555. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(1999)125:7(544)
• [10]. Ling, H., Pamuk, A., Dechasakulsom, M., Mohri, Y., & Burke, C. (2001). Interactions between PVC geomembranes and compacted clays. Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, 127(11). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2001)127:11(950)
• [11]. Lai, H. J., Zheng, J. J., Zhang, J., Zhang, R. J., & Cui, L. (2014). DEM analysis of ‘soil’–arching within geogrid-reinforced and unrein-forced pile-supported embankments. Computers and Geotechnics, 61, 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2014.04.002
• [12]. Wang, Y., & Alonso-Marroquín, F. (2009). A finite deformation method for discrete modeling: Particle rotation and parameter calibra-tion. Granular Mat-ter, 11(5), 331–343. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10035-009-0144-3
• [13]. Kostkanová, V., & Herle, I. (2012). Measurement of wall friction in direct shear tests on soft soil. Acta Geotechnica, 7(4), 333–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11440-012-0167-6
• [14]. Cheng, H., Yamamoto, H., & Thoeni, K. (2016). Numerical study on stress states and fabric anisotropies in soilbags using the DEM. Computers and Geotechnics, 76, 170–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2016.02.002
• [15]. Altair Engineering Inc. (2022). Altair EDEM® Software, Version 2022.1. [Online]. Available at https://www.altair.com/
• [16]. Cundall, P. A., & Strack, O. D. L. (1979). A discrete numerical model for granular assemblies. Geotechnique, 29(1), 47–65. https://doi.org/10.1680/geot.1979.29.1.47
• [17]. Talafha, M. S., & Oldal, I. (2022). The effect of triple particle sizes on the mechanical behaviour of granular materials using the discrete element method (DEM). FME Transactions, 50(1), 139–148. https://doi.org/10.5937/fme2201139T
• [18]. Oldal, I., & Safranyik, F. (2015). Extension of the silo discharge model based on the discrete element method. Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology, 29(9), 3789–3796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12206-015-0825-3
• [19]. Keppler, I., Kocsis, L., Oldal, I., Farkas, I., & Csatar, A. (2012). Grain velocity distribution in a mixed flow dryer. Advanced Powder Technology, 23(6), 824–832. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apt.2011.11.003
• [20]. ASTM International. (2011). ASTM D3080/D3080M-11: Standard test method for direct shear test of soils under consolidated drained conditions.
• [21]. Vorlet, S. L., & de Cesare, G. (2024). A comprehensive review of the application of geomembrane systems in hydropower. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113951
• [22]. Bacas, B. M., Cañizal, J., & Konietzky, H. (2015). Shear strength behavior of geotextile/geomembrane interfaces. Journal of Rock Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, 7(6), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrmge.2015.08.001
• [23]. Fleming, I. R., Sharma, J. S., & Jogi, M. B. (2006). Shear strength of geomembrane-soil interface under unsaturated conditions. Geotex-tiles and Geomembranes, 24(5), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.03.009
• [24]. Inci, D., & Firat, P. H. (2024). Effects of soil and geomembrane types on interface and shear strength behaviour. Gradjevinar, 76(3), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.14256/JCE.3741.2023
• [25]. ASTM International. (2021). Standard test method for determin-ing the shear strength of soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces by direct shear. ASTM D5321/D5321M-21. https://doi.org/10.1520/D5321_D5321M-21
• [26]. Markou, I. N., & Evangelou, E. D. (2018). Shear resistance characteristics of soil–geomembrane interfaces. International Journal of Geosynthetics and Ground Engineering, 4(4). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40891-018-0146-6
• [27]. Coetzee, C. J., & Scheffler, O. C. (2023). Review: The calibration of DEM parameters for the bulk modelling of cohesive materials. Processes, 11(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.3390/pr11010005
• [28]. Yesiller, N., & Cekic, A. (2005). Core thickness and asperity height of textured geomembranes: A critical review. Geotechnical Fabrics Report, 23(4). [Online]. Available: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/19139790.pdf
• [29]. Fleming, I. R., Sharma, J. S., & Jogi, M. B. (2006). Shear strength of geomembrane-soil interface under unsaturated conditions. Geotex-tiles and Geomembranes, 24(5), 274–284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geotexmem.2006.03.009
• [30]. Seo, M. W., Park, J. B., & Park, I. J. (2007). Evaluation of inter-face shear strength between geosynthetics under wet conditions. Soils and Foundations, 47(5), 845–856. https://doi.org/10.3208/sandf.47.845
• [31]. Bairoti, M. M. M. (2024). Modeling of shear strength behavior at soil-geosynthetic interface by discrete element method / Zemin-geosentetik arayüzündeki kayma mukavemeti davranışının ayrık elemanlar yöntemi (DEM) [Master’s thesis, İzmir Katip Çelebi Üniver-sitesi]. Ulusal Tez Merkezi.
• [32]. Chen, D., Li, G., He, P., Zhang, H., Sheng, J., & Wang, M. (2025). Investigating the Shear Characteristics of Geomembrane–Sand Interfaces Under Freezing Conditions. Designs, 9(1), 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/designs9010009