SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1

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

Mohammad Bairoti(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8974-8992
Hasan Fırat Pulat(İZMİR KATİP ÇELEBİ ÜNİVERSİTESİ)0000-0002-8298-7106
Muath S. Talafha(Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Science)0000-0001-9543-3092
Pages
154–162
Publication Date
2026-03-30
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

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.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis: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.
📊
Key Findings & Data: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).
💡
Conclusion & Impact: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.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Discrete Element Method (DEM) · geomembrane · geosynthetic

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.

🔖

Cite This Article

Bairoti, M., Pulat, H. F., Talafha, M. S. (2026). Investigation of the PVC Geomembrane-Sand Interface Behaviour using the Discrete Element Method (DEM). Celal Bayar Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 22 Sayı: 1, 154–162. https://doi.org/10.18466/cbayarfbe.1783279

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (32)

  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