Performance of Geosynthetic Clay Liner with Polymerized Bentonite in Highly Acidic or Alkaline Solutions

  • Nutthachai Prongmanee
  • Jin-Chun ChaiEmail author
Original Paper


The hydraulic behavior of a polymerized bentonite (PB) and the self-healing capacity of a geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) using the PB as core material (PB-GCL) in corrosive solutions (pH ranging from 1 to 13) were investigated through a series of laboratory tests [i.e., free swelling index, swelling pressure, permeability (k) (consolidation), and leakage rate tests]. The test results indicate that the PB had a higher swelling capacity than that of the corresponding untreated bentonite (UB). Particularly, for pH greater than 12.5 solutions, PB had a higher free swelling index (FSI), higher swelling pressure, and lower k value than that of the PB with deionized water. PB-GCL with a damage hole had lower permittivity for the damage hole (ψhole) and a higher self-healing capacity than that of the GCL using UB as the core (UB-GCL). Based on the test results, it is suggested that PB-GCL can be used as an effective barrier material to contain acidic and alkaline liquids.


Geosynthetic clay liner Bentonite Polymerized bentonite Permeability Swelling pressure Corrosive solutions 

List of Symbols


Permittivity of damage hole (s−1)


Self-healing ratio (dimensionless)


Steady flow rate of the undamaged sample (m3/s)


Steady flow rate of the damaged sample (m3/s)


Total specimen area (m2)


Damaged area (m2)


Unhealed area (m2)


Healed area (m2)


Water head difference (mm)



This work was supported by the Grants-in-Aid for Scientific Research (KAKENHI) of the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) under Grant No. 17K06558, and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) under Grant No. 51578333.


  1. 1.
    EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency) (1980) Corrosivity background document and FRN. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DCGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    España JS (2007) The behavior of iron and aluminum in acid mine drainage: speciation, mineralogy, and environmental significance. In: Thermodynamics, solubility and environmental issues. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 137–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ruhl JL, Daniel DE (1997) Geosynthetic clay liners permeated with chemical solutions and leachates. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 123(4):369–381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Benson CH, Ören AH, Gates WP (2010) Hydraulic conductivity of two geosynthetic clay liners permeated with a hyperalkaline solution. Geotext Geomembr 28(2):206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Burke IT, Mortimer RJ, Palaniyandi S, Whittleston RA, Lockwood CL, Ashley DJ, Stewart DI (2012) Biogeochemical reduction processes in a hyper-alkaline leachate affected soil profile. Geomicrobiol J 29(9):769–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Manahan SE (2017) Environmental chemistry. CRC Press, Taylor and Francis Group, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Valor A, Caleyo F, Alfonso L, Rivas D, Hallen JM (2007) Stochastic modelling of pitting corrosion: a new model for initiation and growth of multiple corrosion pits. Corros Sci 49(2):559–579CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yajima A, Wang H, Liang RY, Castaneda H (2015) A clustering based method to evaluate soil corrosivity for pipeline external integrity management. Int J Press Vessels Pip 126:37–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Koch GH, Brongers MP, Thompson NG, Virmani YP, Payer JH (2002) Corrosion cost and preventive strategies in the United States, No. FHWA-RD-01-156, HoustonGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sari K, Chai JC (2013) Self-healing capacity of geosynthetic clay liners and influencing factors. Geotext Geomembr 41:64–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Gandhi GN, Sivakumar Babu GL, Santhosh GL (2016) Evaluation of engineered barrier system for hazardous waste disposal—a case study. Jpn Geotech Soc Spec Publ 2(1):54–61Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Didier G, Norotte V (1998) Mise en oeuvre des Géosynthétiques bentonitiques. In: Proceeding of Géo-Bento, Etanchéité par géosynthétiques bentonitiques: état de l’art, Paris, vol 98, pp 45–63Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fox PJ, Triplett EJ, Kim RH, Olsta JT (1998) Field study of installation damage for geosynthetic clay liners. Geosynth Int 5(5):491–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Rowe RK, Ashe LE, Take WA, Brachman RWI (2014) Factors affecting the down-slope erosion of bentonite in a GCL. Geotext Geomembr 42(5):445–456CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sivakumar Babu GL, Sporer H, Zanzinger H, Gartung E (2001) Self-healing properties of geosynthetic clay liners. Geosynth Int 8(5):461–470CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mazzieri F, Pasqualini E (2000) Permeability of damaged geosynthetic clay liners. Geosynth Int 7(2):101–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Chai JC, Sari K, Hino T (2013) Effect of type of leachate on self-healing capacity of geosynthetic clay liner. Geosynth Eng J 28:93–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Elhajji D, Ashmawy AK, Darlington J, Sotelo N (2001) Effect of inorganic leachate on polymer treated GCL material. In: Proc., the geosynthetics 2001 conference, Portland, pp 663–670Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Razakamanantsoa AR, Barast G, Djeran-Maigre I, Didier G, Couradin A (2008) Hydraulic performance of bentonite soil mixture reinforced by polymer in contact of different fluids. In: Proc., Journées Nationales de Géotechnique et de Géologie de l’Ingénieur, Nantes, pp 133–140Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bohnhoff GL, Shackelford CD (2013) Improving membrane performance via bentonite polymer nanocomposite. Appl Clay Sci 86:83–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Di Emidio G, Mazzieri F, Verastegui-Flores RD, Van Impe W, Bezuijen A (2015) Polymer-treated bentonite clay for chemical-resistant geosynthetic clay liners. Geosynth Int 22(1):125–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Kong DJ, Wu HN, Chai JC, Arulrajah A (2017) State-of-the-art review of geosynthetic clay liners. Sustainability 9(11):2110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Scalia J, Benson CH, Bohnhoff GL, Edil TB, Shackelford CD (2014) Long-term hydraulic conductivity of a bentonite-polymer composite permeated with aggressive inorganic solutions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 140(3):04013025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Scalia J, Benson CH, Edil TB, Bohnhoff GL, Shackelford CD (2011) Geosynthetic clay liners containing bentonite polymer nanocomposite. In: Proceedings of geo-frontiers 2011: advances in geotechnical engineering, pp 2001–2009Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Özhan HO (2017) Effects of adding anionic polymer to GCLs treated with chemical solutions. In: Proceedings of 19th ICSMGE, Seoul, pp 955–958Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Prongmanee N, Chai JC, Shen S (2018) Hydraulic properties of polymerized bentonites. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 30(10):04018247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gooch JW (ed) (2010) Encyclopedic dictionary of polymers, vol 1. Springer Science & Business Media, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Scalia J, Bohnhoff GL, Shackelford CD, Benson CH, Sample-Lord KM, Malusis MA, Likos WJ (2018) Enhanced bentonites for containment of inorganic waste leachates by GCLs. Geosynth Int 25(4):392–411CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Jo HY, Katsum T, Benson CH, Edil TB (2001) Hydraulic conductivity and swelling of nonprehydrated GCLs permeated with single-species salt solutions. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng ASCE 127(7):557–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Naka A, Flores G, Katsumi T, Sakanakura H (2016) Factors influencing hydraulic conductivity and metal retention capacity of geosynthetic clay liners exposed to acid rock drainage. Jpn Geotech Soc Spec Publ 2(69):2379–2384Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chai JC, Shen SL (2018) Predicting swelling behavior of a Na+-bentonite used in GCLs. Int J Geosynth Ground Eng 4(1):9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Prongmanee N, Chai JC (2017) Effect of shape of damage hole on self-healing capacity of GCL. Geosynth Eng J 32:59–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Norotte V, Didier G, Guyonnet D, Gaucher E (2004) Advances in geosynthetic clay liner technology. In: Mackey, von Maubeuge (eds) Proceedings of 2nd symposium, ASTM STP 1456. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, pp 41–52Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rowe RK, Mukunoki T, Bathurst RJ (2006) Compatibility with jet A-1 of a GCL subjected to freeze–thaw cycles. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 132(12):1526–1537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Taylor D (1948) Fundamentals of soil mechanics. Chapman and Hall Limited, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Bohnhoff GL, Shackelford CD (2014) Consolidation behavior of polymerized bentonite-amended backfills. J Geotech Geoenviron Eng 140(5):04013055CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Quang ND, Chai JC (2015) Permeability of lime-and cement-treated clayey soils. Can Geotech J 52(9):1221–1227CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Prechthai T, Visvanathan C, Cheimchaisri C (2006) RDF production potential of municipal solid waste. In: Proceedings of 2nd joint international conference on sustainable energy and environment, pp 21–23Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Adair A, Klinpituksa P, Kaesaman A (2017) Influences of neutralization of superabsorbent hydrogel from hydroxyethyl cellulose on water swelling capacities. In: AIP conference proceedings, vol 1868, no 1. AIP Publishing, pp 020012-1–020012-7Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Du YJ, Yang YL, Fan RD, Wang F (2016) Effects of phosphate dispersants on the liquid limit, sediment volume and apparent viscosity of clayey soil/calcium-bentonite slurry wall backfills. KSCE J Civ Eng 20(2):670–678CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Nakano A, Ohtsubo M, Li L, Higashi T, Kanayama M (2007) Role of carbonate for Pb sorption in some bentonites. Trans Jpn Soc Irrig Drain Rural Eng 251:491–499Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering and ArchitectureSaga UniversitySagaJapan

Personalised recommendations