Geomembrane

Design Standards No.
13
Embankment Dams
Chapter 20: Geomembranes

Phase 4 (Final)
U.S. Department of the Interior

Bureau of Reclamation March 2014
Mission Statements
The U.S. Department of the Interior protects America’s natural
resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities,
and supplies the energy to power our future.
The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop,

and protect water and related resources in an environmentally and
economically sound manner in the interest of the American public.
Design Standards Signature Sheet
Design Standards No. 13
Embankment Dams
DS-13(20)-16: Phase 4 (Final)

March 2014

Foreword
Purpose
The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) design standards present technical
requirements and processes to enable design professionals to prepare design
documents and reports necessary to manage, develop, and protect water and
related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the
interest of the American public. Compliance with these design standards assists
in the development and improvement of Reclamation facilities in a way that
protects the public’s health, safety, and welfare; recognizes needs of all
stakeholders; and achieves lasting value and functionality necessary for
Reclamation facilities. Responsible designers accomplish this goal through
compliance with these design standards and all other applicable technical codes,
as well as incorporation of the stakeholders’ vision and values, that are then
reflected in the constructed facilities.
Application of Design Standards

Reclamation design activities, whether performed by Reclamation or by a non-
Reclamation entity, must be performed in accordance with established
Reclamation design criteria and standards, and approved national design
standards, if applicable. Exceptions to this requirement shall be in accordance
with provisions of Reclamation Manual Policy, Performing Design and
Construction Activities, FAC P03.
In addition to these design standards, designers shall integrate sound engineering

judgment, applicable national codes and design standards, site-specific technical
considerations, and project-specific considerations to ensure suitable designs are
produced that protect the public’s investment and safety. Designers shall use the
most current edition of national codes and design standards consistent with
Reclamation design standards. Reclamation design standards may include
exceptions to requirements of national codes and design standards.
Proposed Revisions
Reclamation designers should inform the Technical Service Center, via
Reclamation’s Design Standards Web site notification procedure, of any
recommended updates or changes to Reclamation design standards to meet
current and/or improved design practices.
Chapter Signature Sheet
Bureau of Reclamation
Technical Service Center
Design Standards No. 13
Embankment Dams
DS-13(20)-16:1 Phase 4 (Final)

March 2014
Chapter 20 – Geomembranes is an existing chapter within Design Standards

No. 13 and was revised to include the addition of:
 State-of-the-practice design and construction considerations
 Bureau of Reclamation geomembrane installation case histories
 Removal of extraneous polymeric manufacturing discussion and dated

installation techniques
1
DS-13(20)-16 refers to Design Standards No. 13, chapter 20, revision 16.
Prepared by:
Derek VVittwer, RE. Date

Civil Engineer, Geotechnical Engineering Group 4, 86-68314
Justirl Hall, P.E. Date

Civil ngineer, Geotechnical Engineering Group 2, 86-68312
Peer Review:
Michael Gobla, RE. Date

Sec� Review:
3,45/i
obert L. Dewey, P.E. Date
Technical Specialist, hnical Services Division, 86-68300
Recommended for Technical Approval:
61) 3h1f 2-O/

Allen H. Kiene, P.E. Date
Submitted:
aztil/L.
Ka en Knight, P.E.
Chief, Geotechnicaf Services Division, 86-68300
Approved:
/
Tom Luebke Date
Director, Technical Service Center, 86-68000
Contents
Page
20.1 Introduction ...................................................................................... 20-1
20.1.1 Purpose............................................................................. 20-1
20.1.2 Scope ................................................................................ 20-2
20.1.3 Deviations from Standard ................................................ 20-2
20.1.4 Revisions of Standard ...................................................... 20-2
20.1.5 Applicability .................................................................... 20-2
20.2 Geomembrane Materials .................................................................. 20-2
20.2.1 Common Geomembrane Types ....................................... 20-3
20.2.1.1 Covered Geomembranes .............................. 20-3
20.2.1.2 Exposed Geomembranes .............................. 20-3
20.2.2 Manufacturing Processes ................................................. 20-4
20.2.2.1 Extrusion ...................................................... 20-5
20.2.2.2 Calendaring .................................................. 20-5
20.2.2.3 Spread Coating ............................................. 20-6
20.2.3 Comparison of Geomembranes........................................ 20-6
20.2.3.1 High-density Polyethylene .......................... 20-6
20.2.3.2 Linear Low-density Polyethylene ................ 20-6
20.2.3.3 Polyvinyl Chloride ....................................... 20-7
20.2.3.4 Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene ................. 20-7
20.2.3.5 Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer ........ 20-7
20.2.3.6 fPP ........................................................ 20-8
20.3 Geomembrane Applications for Embankment Dams ...................... 20-8
20.3.1 Embankment Facing ........................................................ 20-9
20.3.1.1 McDonald Dam .......................................... 20-10
20.3.2 Embankment Core ......................................................... 20-12
20.3.2.1 Pactola Dam ............................................... 20-14
20.3.3 Reservoir Lining and Upstream Blankets ...................... 20-17
20.3.3.1 Horsetooth Reservoir ................................. 20-18
20.3.3.2 Warren H. Brock Reservoir ....................... 20-19
20.3.3.3 Mount Elbert Forebay Reservoir ............... 20-21
20.3.3.4 Black Lake Dam ........................................ 20-22
20.3.3.5 Pablo Dam .................................................. 20-23
20.3.4 Cutoff Walls ................................................................... 20-25
20.3.4.1 Reach 11 Dikes .......................................... 20-27
20.4 Design Considerations ................................................................... 20-28
20.4.1 Laboratory Testing ......................................................... 20-29
20.4.1.1 Physical Properties ..................................... 20-29
20.4.1.2 Mechanical Properties ................................ 20-30
20.4.1.3 Endurance Properties ................................. 20-30
20.4.2 Interface Strength ........................................................... 20-31
20.4.2.1 Interface Strength Scenarios ...................... 20-31
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-i

Contents (continued)
Page
20.4.2.2 Typical Interface Strength Values ............. 20-32
20.4.3 Slope Geometry ............................................................. 20-34
20.4.4 Seam Design .................................................................. 20-34
20.4.5 Anchor Trench and Connections ................................... 20-35
20.4.5.1 Anchorage Design ...................................... 20-35
20.4.5.2 Connections to Rigid Structures ................ 20-38
20.4.6 Leakage .......................................................................... 20-40
20.4.6.1 Leakage Evaluation .................................... 20-41
20.4.6.2 Design Considerations to Avoid
Puncturing of Geomembranes ............ 20-43
20.4.6.3 Leakage Collection and Detection ............. 20-45
20.4.7 Uplift .............................................................................. 20-45
20.4.7.1 Wind........................................................... 20-45
20.4.7.2 Buoyancy ................................................... 20-47
20.4.8 Settlement ...................................................................... 20-48
20.4.8.1 Connections with Abutments ..................... 20-48
20.4.8.2 Connection with Concrete Structures ........ 20-49
20.4.8.3 Use of Soil Reinforcement to
Minimize Differential
Settlement ........................................... 20-51
20.4.9 Exposed Versus Covered Geomembrane....................... 20-52
20.4.10 Protective Cover Design ................................................ 20-53
20.4.10.1 Soil Cover .................................................. 20-53
20.4.10.2 Concrete and Cement-Based Cover ........... 20-57
20.5 Specifications and Construction Considerations ........................... 20-58
20.5.1 Seaming Techniques ...................................................... 20-58
20.5.1.1 Types of Seams and Seaming Methods ..... 20-59
20.5.2 Construction Quality Assurance and Quality
Control Measures ........................................................... 20-67
20.5.3 Geomembrane Factory ................................................... 20-68
20.5.3.1 Conformance Testing ................................. 20-69
20.5.4 Large Panel Fabrication ................................................. 20-70
20.5.5 Transportation ................................................................ 20-70
20.5.5.1 Packaging ................................................... 20-70
20.5.5.2 Labeling ..................................................... 20-70
20.5.5.3 Delivery...................................................... 20-71
20.5.6 Storage ........................................................................... 20-71
20.5.7 Deployment .................................................................... 20-71
20.5.7.1 Subgrade Acceptance ................................. 20-72
20.5.7.2 Installation Planning .................................. 20-72
20.5.7.3 Visual Observation..................................... 20-72
20.5.7.4 Placement ................................................... 20-74
20-ii DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Contents (continued)
Page
20.5.8 Seams ............................................................................. 20-75
20.5.8.1 Seam Layout .............................................. 20-75
20.5.8.2 General Seaming Procedures ..................... 20-75
20.5.8.3 Trial Seams ................................................ 20-76
20.5.9 Patching and Repairs...................................................... 20-77
20.5.10 Field Testing .................................................................. 20-77
20.5.10.1 Seams ......................................................... 20-77
20.5.10.2 Leakage Detection Techniques .................. 20-80
20.5.11 Corrective Measures ...................................................... 20-82
20.5.12 Final Acceptance ............................................................ 20-83
20.5.13 Protective Cover Observation ........................................ 20-83
20.5.13.1 Placement of Cement-based Covers .......... 20-83
20.5.13.2 Placement of Granular Materials ............... 20-84
20.6 References ...................................................................................... 20-87
20.6.1 Supplemental Resources ................................................ 20-91
Tables
Table Page
20.2.1-1 General comments on polymers used in geomembranes .......... 20-4
20.4.1.1-1 Common physical property laboratory tests (ASTM) ............. 20-29
20.4.1.2-1 Common mechanical and hydraulic property laboratory
tests (ASTM)...................................................................... 20-30
20.4.1.3-1 Common endurance property laboratory tests (ASTM) .......... 20-31
20.4.2.2-1 HDPE geomembranes against various materials ..................... 20-32
20.4.2.2-2. LLDPE geomembranes against various materials ................... 20-33
20.4.2.2-3 PVC and CSPE-R geomembranes against various
materials ............................................................................. 20-33
20.4.5.1-1 Typical tensile behavior of geomembranes ............................. 20-38
20.4.6.1.1-1 Typical installation defects ...................................................... 20-42
20.5.1.1-1 Seaming methods for geomembranes ...................................... 20-59
20.5.3.1-1 Suggested minimum geomembrane tests (ASTM) .................. 20-69
20.5.10.1-1 Nondestructive tests used to evaluate seam continuity ............ 20-79
20.5.13.2-1 Suggested remedial and preventative measures for
wrinkles .............................................................................. 20-86
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-iii

Figures
Figure Page
20.3.1-1 (a) Seepage barrier basic exposed concept and

(b) geomembrane system incorporating protective
cover and drainage elements ............................................. 20-9
20.3.1.1-1 McDonald Dam upstream seepage barrier facing
components ..................................................................... 20-11
20.3.1.1-2 (a) Geomembrane deployment, (b) geomembrane

and cover material, (c) geomembrane cover
placement, and (d) completing pre-welds (or test
welds) prior to installation of geomembrane sheets ....... 20-11
20.3.2-1 Vertical seepage barrier using geomembrane panels ............ 20-12
20.3.2-2 Seepage barrier using geomembrane in staged
construction ..................................................................... 20-12
20.3.2-3 Seepage barrier using geomembrane in lift construction ...... 20-12
20.3.2-4 Seepage barrier using geomembrane in the upstream
shell ................................................................................. 20-13
20.3.2-5 Dam raise using geomembrane: (a) vertical
geomembrane installed into existing zone 1 core

and (b) mechanically stabilized earth wall with
vertical geomembrane facing installed into existing
zone 1 core ...................................................................... 20-14
20.3.2.1-1 Pactola Dam raise with HDPE geomembrane ...................... 20-14
20.3.2.1-2 Pactola Dam geomembrane key trench tying into
existing core zone ........................................................... 20-15
20.3.2.1-3 Pactola Dam geomembrane key trench tying into bedrock .. 20-16
20.3.2.1-4 Pactola Dam raise construction photos: (a) geotextile
and geomembrane placement, (b) key trench,

(c) extrusion welding HDPE seam, (d) placement
of cover material, (e) geomembrane placement
atop the concrete, and (f) installing batten strip
over geomembrane/concrete connection......................... 20-16
20.3.3-1 Typical reservoir lining: (a) tying into an upstream

cutoff trench and (b) tying into a central core
and cutoff trench through the upstream shell.
Stability analysis should be conducted to prevent
instability of the upstream slope ..................................... 20-17
20.3.3.1-1 Sinkhole near the upstream toe of the embankment
of Horsetooth Dam .......................................................... 20-18
20.3.3.1-2 LLDPE geomembrane installation ........................................ 20-19
20.3.3.1-3 Clay cap over the PVC geomembrane .................................. 20-19
20.3.3.2-1 Designed cross section at Warren H. Brock Reservoir
(not to scale) .................................................................... 20-20
20-iv DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figures (continued)
Figure Page
20.3.3.2-2 Warren H. Brock Reservoir lining photos: (a) handling

geomembrane rolls, (b) subgrade preparation
for liner placement, (c) geotextile placement over
geomembrane, (d) hot wedge welding HDPE seam,
(e) soil cement placement over gravel drain, and
(f) soil cement protective cover over geomembrane....... 20-20
20.3.3.3-1 Installation of the Mount Elbert Forebay Reservoir
geomembrane on the side slopes (note tires used
as a temporary ballast during installation) ...................... 20-21
20.3.3.3-2 Six-man crew performing seaming operations near
the Mt. Elbert inlet/outlet dike ........................................ 20-22
20.3.3.4-1 Black Lake Dam seepage barrier system details................... 20-23
20.3.3.4-2 Proposed anchor trench detail used at Black Lake Dam....... 20-23
20.3.3.5-1 Pablo Dam geomembrane cutoff design ............................... 20-24
20.3.3.5-2 (a) Anchor trench excavation and (b) installation of
geomembrane .................................................................. 20-25
20.3.4-1 General geomembrane cutoff wall configurations ................ 20-26
20.3.4-2 Geomembrane interlock (top view) ...................................... 20-27
20.3.4.1-1 Reach 11 Dikes geomembrane cutoff wall design ................ 20-28
20.3.4.1-2 (a) Geomembrane panel installation and (b) top view
of installed panels at Reach 11 Dikes ............................. 20-28
20.4.5.1-1 Geomembrane anchor trench design: cross section
and free- body diagrams.................................................. 20-36
20.4.5.2-1 (a) Geomembrane connection to the gallery at Codele
Dam showing batter of concrete face and
(b) construction detail. Legend: (1) supporting

layer (bituminous concrete), (2) concrete cover,
(3) geomembrane liner, (4) geomembrane cutoff,
(5) HDPE batten strip, (6) concrete, (7) butyl strip,
(8) bolt, (9) gallery, (10) clay-filled trench, and
(11) rockfill ..................................................................... 20-39
20.4.5.2-2 Geomembrane termination at Cixerri Dam, showing
significant batter and convex support system ................. 20-40
20.4.6.2-1 Detail of liner placement at the top of the reservoir slope
showing runout, geotextile cushion, geomembrane,
and cover materials at Black Lake Dam,
Montana (BIA) ................................................................ 20-44
20.4.6.2-2 Final rolling of subgrade materials beneath the
geomembrane liner system at Black Lake Dam,
Montana (BIA) ................................................................ 20-44
20.4.7.1-1 Temporary anchorage at leading edge of geomembrane
with sandbags .................................................................. 20-46
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-v

Figures (continued)
Figure Page
20.4.7.1-2 Design options for additional geomembrane anchorage

(a) anchor trenches, (b) pavement or soil anchorage,
(c) intermediate bench, (d) intermediate anchor
trench, (e) basin anchor trenches, and (f) soil
anchorage in basin........................................................... 20-47
20.4.8.2-1 Connection between geomembrane and concrete
structure. Stainless steel batten strip secured
every 6 inches with stainless steel bolts .......................... 20-49
20.4.8.2-2 Correct connection between geomembrane and
concrete structures .......................................................... 20-51
20.4.10.1.1.1-1 Infinite slope stability free-body diagram ............................. 20-54
20.4.10.1.1.2-1 Finite slope stability cross section and free-body
diagram ........................................................................... 20-55
20.5.1.1-1 Various seam configurations: (a) chemical
adhesive or fusion, (b) single hot wedge, (c) dual
hot wedge, (d) thermal or dielectric, and (e) fillet
extrusion weld ................................................................. 20-60
20.5.1.1.2.5-1 Dual-hot-wedge welder ......................................................... 20-64
20.5.6-1 Storage of geomembrane rolls on top of geotextile to prevent
damage from underlying material (note the use of nylon
slings for lifting). ................................................................. 71
20.5.7.1-1 Subgrade preparation prior to geomembrane installation. ......... 72
20.5.7.3-1 Visual observation of dual-hot-wedge welder seaming
operations. ............................................................................ 73
20.5.8.3-1 Trial seam performed on suitable, clean surface. ...................... 76
20.5.10.1-1 Air pressure testing of a dual-wedge-welded seam. .................. 78
20.5.10.1-2 Vacuum testing of an extrusion welded patch. .......................... 78
20.5.10.1-3 Destructive sample patch (Warren H. Brock Reservoir) seamed
by extrusion methods (note initials and date of vacuum test
on patch)............................................................................... 80
20.5.10.2-1 Small damage to geomembrane identified under a protective soil
cover at Warren H. Brock Reservoir with electrical resistivity
sensing.................................................................................. 81
20.5.10.2-2 Large damage to geomembrane identified under a protective soil
cover at Warren H. Brock Reservoir with electrical resistivity
sensing.................................................................................. 82
20.5.10.2-3 (a) Typical electrical resistivity probe and (b) equipment layout.
.............................................................................................. 82
20.5.13.2-1 Placement of protective cover over a geomembrane. ................ 85
20.5.13.2-2. Development of wrinkles at the leading edge of the protective
material placement. .............................................................. 85
20-vi DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Chapter 20
Geomembranes
20.1 Introduction
Since the end of World War II, the development of synthetic polymers has
allowed a significant amount of new construction materials to become available.
These include materials such as geomembranes, geotextiles, geogrids, and plastic
pipes. The Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) has conducted extensive
laboratory and field research on many of these engineered synthetic materials,
specifically geomembranes used as seepage barriers in embankment dams or as
canal linings.
Since the 1990s, the use of geomembranes has grown dramatically, including
applications in water retention dams, water conveyance, tailing dams, hazardous
waste containment, solid waste landfills, and heap leaching operations. Although
geomembranes provide an effective barrier to seepage, there can still be
performance issues due to poor installation, instability of soil covers, faulty
connections with appurtenant structures, and strain incompatibility at abutments.
The designer should always consider the critical nature of the application and the
consequences should the geomembrane fail to perform as intended.
Geomembranes are vulnerable to installation damage, and they can have a finite,
useful life. If left uncovered, they typically have a useful life of between 10 and
20 years. If covered, their performance is increased dramatically, but they still
may not last indefinitely because of issues associated with degradation due to
oxidation and post-installation damage due to root penetration or burrowing
animals. They are often not used by Reclamation in critical locations or used as
the sole line of defense for controlling or reducing seepage.
20.1.1 Purpose
This chapter is intended to provide design guidance for the use of geomembranes
in embankment dams. Geomembranes can be used as seepage barriers in
embankment dams or for complete containment of reservoirs. This chapter is
not intended to be all encompassing in regard to discussing the different methods
used to manufacture geomembranes, their use and applications in other industries,
or identifying every geomembrane type currently available on the market.
This chapter does not apply to geotextiles, which are covered in chapter 19 of
these design standards.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-1

Design Standards No. 13: Geomembranes
20.1.2 Scope
The scope of this chapter is limited to (1) providing the reader with a basic
understanding of geomembranes and their use for embankment dams and
reservoirs, (2) presenting various applications that can be utilized for new and
existing embankment dams, (3) presenting typical design considerations, and
(4) providing guidelines for specifications and construction considerations.
20.1.3 Deviations from Standard

All Reclamation designs of geomembranes associated with embankment dams or
reservoirs should conform to this design standard. If deviations from the standard
are required for any reason, the rationale for not using the standard shall be
clearly presented in the technical documentation for the geomembrane design.
The technical documentation is to be approved by the appropriate line supervisors
and managers.
20.1.4 Revisions of Standard

Comments or suggested revisions to this standard should be forwarded to the
Chief, Geotechnical Services Division, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver,
Colorado 80225 for review and incorporation in this design standard.
20.1.5 Applicability
This design standard is applicable to the use of geomembranes as an impermeable
element in embankment dams or reservoirs. The standard covers geomembrane
properties, applications, design, construction, and monitoring.
20.2 Geomembrane Materials

Geomembranes are manmade, low-permeability membrane liners or barriers
formed into thin sheets used to control the migration of a fluid. A common
application of geomembranes includes seepage barriers for geotechnical structures
constructed essentially with soil and/or rock such as embankment dams.
Geomembrane is a generic term that has been proposed to replace many terms
such as synthetic membranes, polymeric membranes, plastic liners, flexible
membrane liners, impermeable membranes, and impervious sheets. Compacted
earth linings incorporating various types of manufactured or natural additives, and
hard surface linings such as steel, concrete, gunite, asphaltic concrete, and soil
cement, are not considered geomembranes for the purposes of this design
standard.
20-2 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

The types of geomembranes that adhere to the aforementioned definition include

those composed primarily of polymeric materials made in a factory, either
nonreinforced or reinforced (composite) with a fabric. American Society for
Testing Materials (ASTM) D4439 outlines a geomembrane as an “essentially
impermeable geosynthetic composed of one or more synthetic sheets.”
Geomembranes can also include those composed of bituminous products.
However, because of their limited use throughout the United States and within
Reclamation, they are not discussed in this chapter. For more information related
to bituminous geomembranes, refer to the International Commission on Large
Dams (ICOLD) Bulletin 135 [1]. Additionally, liners/barriers that are
manufactured onsite, such as impregnated geotextiles and sprayed liners, are not
discussed in this chapter because of their limited use and requirements for
favorable weather conditions during installation. Additional information related
to these types of geomembranes can be referenced in ICOLD Bulletin 78 [2].
This chapter focuses primarily on polymer type geomembranes that are
manufactured in a factory because of their common use in the United States and
Reclamation.
20.2.1 Common Geomembrane Types

The design and specification of a geomembrane requires an understanding of the
properties of the polymer used to manufacture the material. For example, the
flexibility of the polymers can vary and impact the ease of installation. Polymers
degrade with exposure to ultraviolet (UV) light. Therefore, carbon black and
other additives are added to the polymer to enhance its resistance to degradation
due to exposure to sunlight. Also, a greater thickness increases the expected
service life.
Table 20.2.1-1 presents a brief summary of the more commonly used polymeric
geomembranes.
20.2.1.1 Covered Geomembranes

Many geomembranes are only intended for covered applications, and when
buried, are predicted to last hundreds of years. One report cites a service life in
excess of 950 years [1]. Furthermore, covered geomembranes are protected from
the numerous elements that may damage exposed liners such as oxidation,
abrasion, UV degradation, freeze/thaw, animal intrusion, wind uplift, and
vandalism.
20.2.1.2 Exposed Geomembranes

Geomembranes that have been formulated for exposed applications have a typical
service life of about 30 years. However, some geomembranes have been in
operation for over 30 years on dam faces with little to no loss in the original
physical properties.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-3

Table 20.2.1-1. General comments on polymers used in geomembranes [1]

Approximate
resin
formulation
Geomembrane (Percent of
type Abbreviation Polymer type total weight) Comment
High-density HDPE Thermoplastic 95–98 High resistance to UV and
polyethylene chemical degradation. Can
be susceptible to stress
cracking.
Linear low-density LLDPE Thermoplastic 94–96 LLDPE has less resistance
polyethylene to UV and chemical
degradation. Slightly more
flexible than HDPE.
Excellent elongation
properties.
Polyvinyl chloride PVC Thermoplastic 30–40 Good flexibility at all
temperatures. Could
degrade quickly depending
on plasticizer.
Chlorosulphonated CSPE Thermoplastic 40–60 Difficult to repair once
polyethylene rubber installed because of
vulcanization.
Ethylene propylene EPDM Thermoset 25–30 Excellent flexibility. Seams
diene terpolymer must be glued and may not
be as durable as other
membranes.
Polypropylene fPP Thermoplastic 85–96 Fairly new product and
(flexible) service life not well known,
but considered to be flexible
and easy to install.
20.2.1.2.1 Plasticized Polyvinyl Chloride

Geomembranes are typically manufactured in rolls with dimensions of width
ranging between 6 and 33 feet, lengths of up to 1,000 feet, and a weight of up
to 2 tons. Geomembrane rolls can be fabricated to any shape and thickness
(30–100 mil). Their size is usually limited by handling or weight considerations.
Fabricated panels of flexible geomembranes (such as polyvinyl chloride [PVC]
and chlorosulphonated polyethylene [CSPE] geomembranes) can be accordion-
folded or rolled for transportation. Stiffer geomembranes (such as high-density
polyethylene [HDPE] and linear low-density polyethylene [LLDPE]) are shipped
in rolls.
20.2.2 Manufacturing Processes

Smooth or textured geomembranes can be manufactured to be relatively
homogenous and are constituted primarily of polymeric materials mixed with
other additives as required. Additionally, geomembranes can be manufactured in
20-4 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

multiple layers, in different colors, with varying degrees of texturing (single or

double-sided), or with reinforcement that can be external or internal to the
membranes. The primary purposes for the differing configurations are to either
enhance the mechanical properties (e.g., tensile strength) of the geomembranes
under consideration or, in the case of multilayered products, to reduce the costs by
enhancing the properties of the outer layers only. Additional information can be
referenced in ICOLD Bulletin 135 [1] or in Scheirs [3].
The three most common ways of manufacturing geomembranes are listed below:
 Extrusion
 Calendaring
 Spread coating
The manufacturing processes are described briefly in sections 20.2.2.1

through 20.2.2.3. More detailed descriptions regarding the manufacturing process
and composition of geomembranes can be referenced in published literature or by
visiting manufacture’s Web sites.
20.2.2.1 Extrusion
The extrusion process is most commonly used to produce HDPE, LLDPE, and
polypropylene (fPP) geomembranes. A molten polymeric compound is extruded
through a die to form a sheet of polymeric compound. The molten polymeric
compound is driven through the die either by applying pressure on the molten
polymeric compound or by using a circular die to form a tube and blowing air
inside it.
The extrusion process can also be used to produce textured geomembranes

(i.e., geomembranes with a rough surface), which can create a higher friction
surface. The four methods used to texture geomembranes include coextrusion,
impingement, lamination, and structuring. The most common methods used in
the United States are coextrusion and structuring. Either method produces a
textured surface that improves the sliding resistance along the interface of a
geomembrane and soil. For more information regarding the coextrusion process,
refer to Koerner [4].
20.2.2.2 Calendaring
The calendaring process is most commonly used to produce PVC, CSPE, and
scrim reinforced (-R) geomembranes, including CSPE-R and fPP-R [4]. A hot
polymeric compound passes through a series of heated rollers to form a sheet of
polymeric compound. Several sheets of polymeric compound can be calendared
simultaneously and associated to form a “multi-ply” geomembrane. This is
mostly used to associate polymeric sheets having complementary properties.
However, in the 1970s, nonreinforced calendared geomembranes were often
composed of two identical plies. The purpose of this process was to minimize
the risk of having a pinhole through the entire thickness of the geomembrane.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-5

Pinholes are small holes that can exist in a sheet of polymeric compound as a
result of grit or from the manufacturing process. The rollers are usually smooth.
However, rollers with a patterned surface are sometimes used to produce
geomembranes with a textured surface.
20.2.2.3 Spread Coating

The spread coating process is typically used for producing geomembranes
reinforced with geotextiles (a type of geocomposite). With this process, a
uniform coating of molten polymeric compound is spread on a woven or
nonwoven geotextile. This manufacturing process is rarely used.
20.2.3 Comparison of Geomembranes

20.2.3.1 High-density Polyethylene
HDPE geomembranes are composed of thermoplastic crystalline polymers that
are highly resistant to chemicals such as acids, oils, and solvents. Most HDPE
geomembranes have between 2 and 3 percent carbon black content to provide
UV resistance. They are used extensively in the United States and are very
resistant to tearing and puncturing. HDPE geomembranes can be manufactured in
numerous dimensions, thicknesses, and colors to facilitate ease of installation.
Conversely, because HDPE geomembranes are semicrystalline, they can be very

stiff, especially during cold weather, and could be difficult to install in tight
corners. Wrinkles are common due to their high coefficient of expansion. HDPE
can expand due to solar heat exposure during installation, which can inhibit
seaming operations and placement of protective cover materials. HDPE
geomembranes perform well when left uncovered; however, they can be
susceptible to stress cracking if the resin is not appropriate. HDPE geomembrane
seams must be thermally welded.
20.2.3.2 Linear Low-density Polyethylene

LLDPE, sometimes referred to as very flexible polyethylene (VFPE)
geomembranes, is similar to HDPE except that it has a lower density (typically
less than 0.94 grams per cubic centimeters). As a result, LLDPE geomembranes
are more flexible than HDPE geomembranes and have greater puncture resistance
when elongated, but have lower tensile strength [3]. LLDPE has excellent
elongation properties, which are critical when differential settlements or rough
subgrade conditions are anticipated. They are commonly used in the United
States and are somewhat resistant to environmental degradation. LLDPE is often
selected rather than HDPE for applications in northern climates due to HDPE’s
difficulties in cold weather installation and issues with stress cracking. LLDPE is
also available in numerous sizes, texturing, and thicknesses to accommodate
design and construction needs.
20-6 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Even though LLDPE is more flexible than HDPE, it is still somewhat stiffer than
other products such as PVC, fPP, and EPDM. Therefore, LLDPE could be more
difficult to install in tight areas than PVC or fPP. LLDPE geomembrane seams
must be thermally welded.
20.2.3.3 Polyvinyl Chloride

PVC geomembranes can also be produced in various widths and thicknesses.
Most are unreinforced, but fabric reinforcement has been used. Most PVC
geomembranes manufactured in the United States are not formulated for exposed
applications such as they are in Europe. PVC geomembranes contain up to
40 percent of one or more plasticizers to make the sheeting flexible [3]. Different
plasticizers can be used in PVC geomembranes depending on the application and
required service life. Plasticizer loss is the primary reason for PVC geomembrane
deterioration. Plasticizer loss results from volatilization due to high temperatures.
However, based on observation and testing of PVC geomembranes installed at
some Reclamation facilities, PVC geomembranes have performed satisfactory,
when covered, with very little loss of plasticizers over time. Also, increased
awareness of this problem has resulted in the production of higher quality PVC
geomembranes by incorporating high molecular weight plasticizers with low
migration rates [5].
PVC geomembranes have good tensile, elongation, and puncture and abrasion
resistance properties. PVC geomembranes can be readily seamed by solvent
welding, adhesives, and heat or dielectric methods. Due to the flexible nature of
PVC and possibly the manufacturing process, the interface friction angle with
underlying or overlying soils is generally higher than other smooth
geomembranes. PVC geomembranes are widely used in both the United States
and Europe. In fact, they are the most widely used geomembrane product in the
world in embankment dam applications [1]. Specifically formulated PVC
geomembranes (using the highest quality UV stabilizers) are used in exposed dam
facings when incorporating additives commensurate with European standards.
20.2.3.4 Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene

CSPE geomembranes are thermoplastic rubbers and are a relatively new class of
geomembranes. CSPE geomembranes are processed and shaped at relatively high
temperatures when they are plastic; when they are cooled to normal ambient
temperatures, they behave like vulcanized rubbers [6]. As with HDPE and
LLDPE geomembranes, their seams can be thermally welded. However, their
long-term durability is related primarily to floating covers for the last 25 years,
and they can be more difficult to repair because of cross linking or vulcanization
of the thermoplastic rubber with age.
20.2.3.5 Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer

EPDM geomembranes have excellent resistance to weather and ultraviolet
exposure and resist abrasion and tearing. EPDM can tolerate temperature
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-7

extremes and maintain flexibility at low temperatures. EPDM geomembranes are

thermoset polymers; therefore, they require the use of special cements and careful
application to assure satisfactory field seaming. Good quality control testing
and observation procedures should be in place to assure long-term durability.
20.2.3.6 fPP
fPP geomembranes are made from polypropylene and a thermoset rubber and are
flexible, similar to PVC and EPDM geomembranes. They are also considered
durable, but can be susceptible to degradation due to organic acids and could
potentially crack at sharp bends where exposed [4]. Since they are flexible, they
are easier to install than LLDPE and HDPE geomembranes. Similar to HDPE,
LLDPE, and CSPE geomembranes, they are thermally welded. However, as
opposed to CSPE geomembranes, fPP geomembranes are generally easier to
repair.
20.3 Geomembrane Applications for

Embankment Dams
The applications of geomembranes for use in embankment dams include the
following:
 Impervious facing of embankment dams

 Impervious embankment elements
 Dam raises
 Reservoir lining (commonly referred to as upstream blankets)
 Cutoff walls
 Repair of leaking dams
 Temporary applications (cofferdams and limiting seepage into
excavations)
There are a number of other uses for geomembranes in other industries that are
not discussed in this chapter and can be referenced in associated textbooks [4, 7,
8, 9].
The performance of a geomembrane depends on the materials in contact with it.

Together with the protective cover, drainage layers, and support layer (which
may be a drainage layer or a low permeability material), one or several types
of geomembranes can be used to form a lining system or seepage barrier.
Selection of the lining system is the first phase of leakage control design. In
selecting the lining system and its location, the potential leakage rate is the
primary consideration, but other considerations, such as impacts to embankment
stability, puncture resistance, long-term durability, ease of installation, and
long-term maintenance are also very important. These various considerations for
20-8 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

designing new embankment dams and for rehabilitating existing embankment

dams are discussed below with reference to specific Reclamation projects.
20.3.1 Embankment Facing

Geomembranes can be used to line the upstream face of embankment dams to
minimize migration of water through the dam. Figure 20.3.1-1 illustrates two
types of applications in which geomembranes were used on the face of
embankment dams.
Figure 20.3.1-1. (a) Seepage barrier basic exposed concept and (b) geomembrane
system incorporating protective cover and drainage elements.
A negligible amount of leakage occurs through geomembranes as a result of

diffusion. A much greater amount of leakage occurs because of defects in the
geomembrane. Defects can be due to improper manufacturing (which is now
very rare), improper seaming (which is difficult to eliminate totally), and
accidental puncture (which is always possible). Leakage due to potential
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-9

defects must always be considered in the design; however, tie-in to the abutments
and upstream toe is typically the major source of leakage. Therefore, the material
underlying the geomembrane must be permeable enough to evacuate water
that migrates through the geomembrane. If water were allowed to accumulate
under the geomembrane, it could uplift the geomembrane during rapid
drawdown of the reservoir. The presence of a protective soil layer overlying
the geomembrane can minimize uplift, but may not be sufficient to prevent it
completely.
On figure 20.3.1-1a, the geomembrane is used as a single liner on the upstream

face of the dam. At the crest and toe of the upstream face, the geomembrane is
either anchored in a trench backfilled with compacted soil or connected to a
concrete beam or simply ran out horizontally (the concrete beam at the toe
of the dam may be underlain by a cutoff wall). The advantage of runout
versus anchoring is that the geomembrane is subject to less tensile stress.
This basic cross section has been used in many dams in the United States and
Europe [1].
Many installations utilize a geomembrane underlain by a drainage layer and

overlain by a protective cover. A typical cross section of a dam with a covered
geomembrane at the upstream face is shown on figure 20.3.1-1b. One or more
transition layers (filter zones) may be required between the drainage layer and the
embankment. In some cases, a double liner may be desired to monitor leakage or
to provide a redundant seepage barrier. This is considered more of a preference
rather than a requirement, and the benefits versus cost should be carefully
evaluated.
20.3.1.1 McDonald Dam

The McDonald Dam modification was designed by Reclamation for the Bureau of
Indian Affairs (BIA) and is an example of the utilization of a geomembrane for
upstream facing. The homogeneous earthfill embankment is 1,500 feet long at
crest elevation 3604, has a structural height of 49 feet, and impounds 8,225 acre-
feet of water. A seepage barrier system was constructed on the upstream slope
of the earthfill embankment between elevations 3545 and 3601. The system
consisted of a primary barrier (geomembrane) underlain by a secondary barrier
(compacted clay liner). The seepage barrier is shown on figure 20.3.1.1-1
and consists of, from top to bottom: (1) riprap, (2) geomembrane cover
material, (3) textured geomembrane (60-mil [VFPE]), (4) geotextile (10 ounce per
square yard [oz/yd2] nonwoven), (5) bedding material, (6) compacted clay liner
(impervious earthfill), and (7) filter material.
Installation of the seepage barrier system is shown on figure 20.3.1.1-2.
20-10 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.3.1.1-1. McDonald Dam upstream seepage barrier facing components.
Figure 20.3.1.1-2. (a) Geomembrane deployment, (b) geomembrane and cover

material, (c) geomembrane cover placement, and (d) completing pre-welds (or test
welds) prior to installation of geomembrane sheets.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-11

20.3.2 Embankment Core

Geomembranes can replace or augment impervious cores (zone 1). This can
be achieved by placing the geomembrane inside the dam instead of on the
upstream face. In other words, the geomembrane serves as a substitute to the
impervious element of an embankment dam. Four possible applications are
shown on figures 20.3.2-1 through 20.3.2-4. The geomembrane core shown
on figure 20.3.2-1 is constructed after completion of the embankment by
excavation of a trench supported by bentonite slurry followed by insertion of
geomembrane panels connected by a special technique. This technique is
described in section 20.3.4 for the design and construction of cutoff walls.
Figure 20.3.2-1. Vertical seepage barrier using geomembrane panels.
Figure 20.3.2-2. Seepage barrier using geomembrane in staged construction.
Figure 20.3.2-3. Seepage barrier using geomembrane in lift construction.
20-12 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.3.2-4. Seepage barrier using geomembrane in the upstream shell.
Alternatively, the geomembrane core can be constructed as the embankment

construction progresses. A typical cross section is shown on figure 20.3.2-2. The
embankment is constructed in several stages and, at the end of each stage, the
geomembrane is placed and seamed to the geomembrane in the previous lift. The
location of the geomembrane should be such that it does not create a slip surface
for the upstream as well as the downstream slope. A textured geomembrane
should be considered if this is an issue. A zig-zag shape such as that shown on
figure 20.3.2-3 is sometimes considered to minimize the surface area of a
geomembrane and allows for embankment settlement with minimal stress to the
geomembrane. However, it is not recommended because it can be difficult to
construct and does not significantly decrease the geomembrane surface area
compared to the cross section shown on figure 20.3.2-4. It should be noted that
all of these types of installations make it very difficult to repair the geomembrane
once embankment construction is complete. It is recommended that redundancies
such as filters and drains or other impervious elements be included with these
types of installations to mitigate potential internal erosion concerns and that the
geomembrane not be relied upon to be the sole line of defense. Depending on
site-specific conditions and consequences, additional engineering controls may be
required.
Geomembranes can also be used with traditional construction techniques to raise

the crest of embankment dams. Two examples are illustrated on figure 20.3.2-5.
In any of these cases, it is essential that the geomembrane does not promote the
development of a slip surface. Therefore, stability analyses (section 20.4.10)
must be performed to properly select the location and type (e.g., textured versus
smooth) of geomembrane.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-13

Figure 20.3.2-5. Dam raise using geomembrane: (a) vertical geomembrane

installed into existing zone 1 core and (b) mechanically stabilized earth wall with
vertical geomembrane facing installed into existing zone 1 core.
20.3.2.1 Pactola Dam

Pactola Dam is an example of a Reclamation dam that integrates a geomembrane
into a dam raise. The zoned earthfill embankment is 2,236 feet long at crest
elevation 4655, has a structural height of 245 feet, and impounds 99,000 acre-feet
of water. A portion of the earthfill embankment was raised approximately 15 feet
and incorporated an inclined 40-mil HDPE geomembrane, which tied into the
existing zone 1 core material as shown conceptually on figure 20.3.2.1-1.
Figure 20.3.2.1-1. Pactola Dam raise with HDPE geomembrane.
20-14 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

The geomembrane seepage barrier was incorporated from elevation 4652.5 down
into the crest of the existing zone 1 core. The geomembrane was underlain with a
nonwoven geotextile to protect the geomembrane from damage due to puncture
caused by the underlying zone 2B material. One foot of cover material (zone 2A)
was placed over the geomembrane to protect the geomembrane from damage
caused by placement of the zone 2B material. The upper anchor trench had
dimensions of 2 feet by 2 feet and incorporated 2 feet of runout of the
geomembrane prior to backfilling of the trench. The lower anchor trench (or
key trench) connection details between the geomembrane and existing zone 1 core
are shown on figure 20.3.2.1-2, and the concrete anchor detail tying into bedrock
is shown on figure 20.3.2.1-3.
Figure 20.3.2.1-2. Pactola Dam geomembrane key trench tying into existing core
zone.
Construction of the dam raise is shown on figure 20.3.2.1-4.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-15

Figure 20.3.2.1-3. Pactola Dam geomembrane key trench tying into bedrock.
Figure 20.3.2.1-4. Pactola Dam raise construction photos:

(a) geotextile and geomembrane placement, (b) key trench,
(c) extrusion welding HDPE seam, (d) placement of cover material,
(e) geomembrane placement atop the concrete, and (f) installing batten
strip over geomembrane/concrete connection.
20-16 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.3.3 Reservoir Lining and Upstream Blankets

A geomembrane upstream blanket can be used to minimize leakage under a dam,
as shown on figure 20.3.3-1, either with partial basin coverage or full lining of the
reservoir. Horsetooth Reservoir, Warren H. Brock Reservoir, Mount Elbert
Forebay Reservoir, Black Lake Dam, and Pablo Dam are five examples of
Reclamation and BIA projects falling into this category and are discussed further
below. Other Reclamation projects involving total or partial reservoir lining
include San Justo Reservoir, Black Mountain Operating Reservoir, and Ochoco
Dam.
Figure 20.3.3-1. Typical reservoir lining: (a) tying into an upstream cutoff trench
and (b) tying into a central core and cutoff trench through the upstream shell.
Stability analysis should be conducted to prevent instability of the upstream slope.
If the partial or complete blanket geomembrane is installed on a soil containing

zones that are weak or likely to collapse (for example karstic formations),
consideration of differential settlement should be addressed. A layer of soil
reinforced with a geosynthetic (geogrid or high-strength/high-modulus geotextile)
can be used under the geomembrane for stabilization.
Uplift of geomembrane upstream blankets during rapid drawdown is a potential

problem and is further discussed in section 20.4.7. Methods for estimating the
effectiveness of an upstream blanket are presented in chapter 8 of Design
Standards No. 13 (appendix B) [10]. Computerized numerical methods should be
used to check the final design and should always be used for complex foundation
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-17

and seepage conditions. In addition, soils at the seepage exit point should be
evaluated to ensure that the critical exit gradients are not exceeded.
20.3.3.1 Horsetooth Reservoir

An example of a Reclamation dam in which a geomembrane was used to provide
a partial upstream blanket is at Horsetooth Dam. The reservoir consists of four
embankment dams at crest elevation 5444. The embankments, from north to
south, are Horsetooth, Soldier Canyon, Dixon Canyon, and Spring Canyon Dams.
The geomembrane seepage barrier was constructed near the upstream toe of
Horsetooth Dam in response to karstic conditions underlying the embankment as
evidenced by the sinkhole shown on figure 20.3.3.1-1.
Figure 20.3.3.1-1. Sinkhole near the upstream toe of the

embankment of Horsetooth Dam.
Initial repair of the sinkhole and associated voids consisted of grouting the
rock, after which a concrete plug was poured at the entrance to the sinkhole. A
3-foot-thick layer of sandy gravel material was placed over the sinkhole, followed
by the installation of an 80-foot by 100-foot 40-mil PVC geomembrane over
the sinkhole area. Subsequently, the final repair consisted of covering the
sinkhole area and the trace of the soluble limestone units with 40-mil LLDPE
geomembrane. The area covered with LLDPE geomembrane is approximately
300 feet by 800 feet as shown on figure 20.3.3.1-2. Five feet of sandy clay was
then placed as a cap over the LLDPE geomembrane. The 40-mil PVC and sandy
clay cover material are shown on figure 20.3.3.1-3.
20-18 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.3.3.1-2. LLDPE geomembrane installation.
Figure 20.3.3.1-3. Clay cap over the PVC geomembrane.
20.3.3.2 Warren H. Brock Reservoir

An example of a Reclamation reservoir in which a geomembrane was used for
total reservoir lining is Warren H. Brock Reservoir. The earthfill embankment
has a structural height of 26 feet at a crest elevation of 158 and impounds
approximately 8,000 acre-feet of water.
The seepage barrier in the reservoir floor consists of a 60-mil HDPE

geomembrane overlain by 2 feet of protective soil cover. The seepage barrier on
the upstream face of the embankment consists of, from top to bottom: (1) 9-inch
thick soil cement; (2) a drainage layer consisting of geotextile, geonet composite,
and gravel filter; and (3) 60-mil textured HDPE geomembrane. The seepage
barrier is shown on figure 20.3.3.2-1. A white geomembrane was selected to
minimize wrinkling in the hot environment.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-19

Figure 20.3.3.2-1. Designed cross section at Warren H. Brock Reservoir (not

to scale).
Construction of the reservoir lining at Warren H. Brock Reservoir is shown below

on figure 20.3.3.2-2.
Figure 20.3.3.2-2. Warren H. Brock Reservoir lining photos:

(a) handling geomembrane rolls, (b) subgrade preparation for liner
placement, (c) geotextile placement over geomembrane, (d) hot wedge
welding HDPE seam, (e) soil cement placement over gravel drain, and
(f) soil cement protective cover over geomembrane.
20-20 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.3.3.3 Mount Elbert Forebay Reservoir

Another example of a Reclamation reservoir in which a geomembrane was used
for total reservoir lining is Mt. Elbert Forebay Reservoir. The offstream reservoir
is impounded by a rolled, zoned earthfill embankment 2,600 feet long at elevation
9652, with a structural height of 92 feet, and it impounds 11,530 acre-feet of
water. The reservoir is the forebay for the power generation at the Twin Lakes
Powerplant. The reservoir is filled via pipeline from Turquoise Lake and/or
pumping water from Twin Lakes Reservoir. Due to electrical power generation
demands, the reservoir is generally full. The reservoir lining extends to elevation
9650, which is 2 feet below the crest elevation.
The reservoir is lined with 45-mil reinforced chlorinated polyethylene (CPE)

geomembrane, which is sandwiched between layers of protective material. CPE
is essentially a more flexible version of HDPE with good chemical and UV
resistance. Its chemical structure is between that of a PVC and CSPE.
Figures 20.3.3.3-1 and 20.3.3.3-2 show the installation of the membrane.
Figure 20.3.3.3-1. Installation of the Mount Elbert Forebay Reservoir geomembrane

on the side slopes (note tires used as a temporary ballast during installation).
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-21

Figure 20.3.3.3-2. Six-man crew performing seaming operations near the Mt. Elbert
inlet/outlet dike.
20.3.3.4 Black Lake Dam

An additional example of utilizing geomembrane for partial reservoir lining is
the BIA Black Lake Dam, which was designed by Reclamation. The zoned
earthfill embankment is 544 feet long at elevation 4440, with a structural height
of 65 feet, and it impounds 5,200 acre-feet of water. The facility has a history of
reservoir restrictions due to sinkholes and depressions. The seepage barrier was
designed and constructed to prevent water from seeping into the embankment,
abutments, and foundation units.
The seepage barrier consists of, from top to bottom: (1) a protective cover;
(2) 60-mil textured VLDPE, which has a slightly lower density than LLDPE; (3) a
10 oz/yd2 nonwoven geotextile; and (4) prepared subgrade. Riprap was placed
over the protective material on the slopes of the facility. Seepage barrier layout
designs for Black Lake Dam are shown on figures 20.3.3.4-1 and 20.3.3.4-2.
20-22 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.3.3.4-1. Black Lake Dam seepage barrier system details.
Figure 20.3.3.4-2. Proposed anchor trench detail used at Black Lake Dam.
20.3.3.5 Pablo Dam

An example of a BIA dam that utilized a geomembrane for a partial upstream
blanket was designed by Reclamation for Pablo Dam, which is located near Pablo,
Montana. Pablo Dam is an earthfill embankment with a structural height of
43 feet at crest elevation 3220, and it impounds 28,400 acre-feet of water. The
dam was experiencing excessive seepage through the top portion of the structure
and had a history of sinkhole development. The two embankment raises above
the original crest of 3201 were constructed with pervious materials; therefore, a
seepage barrier was installed on the upstream slope of the embankment between
elevations 3198 and 3212.
The seepage barrier consists of a 60-mil HDPE geomembrane placed over a

prepared subgrade. The geomembrane was overlain by a 1-foot-thick protective
cover, a 1-foot-thick riprap bedding material, followed by 3 feet of riprap. The
upper anchor trench had dimensions of 2 feet by 2 feet and incorporates 2 feet of
runout prior to backfilling of the trench. The lower anchor trench is 3 feet deep
and 2 feet wide. The upstream cutoff design and installation photos are shown on
figures 20.3.3.5-1 and 20.3.3.5-2, respectively.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-23

Figure 20.3.3.5-1. Pablo Dam geomembrane cutoff design.
20-24 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

(a)
(b)
Figure 20.3.3.5-2. (a) Anchor trench excavation and (b) installation of
geomembrane.
20.3.4 Cutoff Walls

Geomembranes can be used to construct vertical seepage cutoff walls through
or under embankment dams. Current information indicates that only HDPE
geomembranes have been used in this type of application, with typical thicknesses
of 1.5 to 3 millimeters (mm) (60 to 120 mils). The widths of the HDPE panels
vary greatly depending on the installation procedure, from 3 to 30 feet.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-25

For cutoff walls, the geomembrane panels are installed vertically. Simple
overlapping between adjacent panels is not sufficient to provide watertightness.
Special interlocks made of polyethylene are used, which are similar to the
interlocks connecting conventional steel sheet piles. General cutoff wall
configurations are shown on figure 20.3.4-1.
Figure 20.3.4-1. General geomembrane cutoff wall configurations.
Interlocks that are only mechanically locked cannot be completely watertight.

Additional watertightness can be obtained by grouting the lock; placing a rod of
expansive material, such as a polymeric compound that swells when exposed to
water within the interlock; or extrusion welding using welding equipment that can
go into tube-shaped interlocks. In the last case, hot air is blown in the tube prior
to welding to eliminate humidity and to preheat the interlock to facilitate welding.
The interlocks are welded to the geomembrane prior to insertion into the ground.
The HDPE interlock is often thicker than the geomembrane to ensure that, in case
of tension, the geomembrane will stretch and the interlock will not fail. An
example of a geomembrane interlock is shown on figure 20.3.4-2.
20-26 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.3.4-2. Geomembrane interlock (top view).
Geomembrane cutoff walls can be installed using several techniques, which

include the use of geomembrane panels attached to mandrels that are driven into
the soil by vibration, geomembrane panels attached to rigid frames and driven
into the soil by water jetting, and by lowering geomembrane panels that are
attached to a rigid frame into a slurry trench. More details describing these
techniques can be found in Scuero et al. [11]. Cutoff walls can be partial or fully
penetrating. However, to be effective, cutoff walls must generally fully penetrate
the pervious strata. See chapters 8 and 16 of Design Standards No. 13 for more
information on cutoff walls [10, 12].
20.3.4.1 Reach 11 Dikes

An example of a Reclamation project in which a geomembrane was used for a
seepage cutoff through the crest of a structure is Reach 11 Dikes. The dikes are
zoned earthfill embankments, which are part of the Hayden/Rhodes aqueduct in
Phoenix, Arizona. The facility was leaking excessively through the embankment
and foundation, requiring a seepage cutoff that would intercept an underlying
impervious foundation stratum.
A seepage barrier consisting of vertically installed 80-mil HDPE geomembrane

panels were installed along the centerline of the dike, which incorporates a
chimney filter immediately downstream from the geomembrane. Finger drains,
connected to the trench, were constructed at 500-foot intervals along the dikes to
safely carry away any seepage that may enter the trench. The trench, which was
supported by revertible biopolymer slurry, was designed to be 2 feet wide and
extend 10 feet into the underlying foundation. The cutoff wall design and
installation photos are shown on figures 20.3.4.1-1 and -2, respectively.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-27

Figure 20.3.4.1-1. Reach 11 Dikes geomembrane cutoff wall design.
(a) (b)
Figure 20.3.4.1-2. (a) Geomembrane panel installation and (b) top view of installed
panels at Reach 11 Dikes.
20.4 Design Considerations

The following sections briefly outline some of the critical design aspects of
incorporating a geomembrane into an existing or new embankment dam.
This section is not considered exhaustive and references several prominent
textbooks for further details [1, 3, 4, 7, 9]. However, when selecting the type of
geomembrane for either new construction or remediation, the following selection
criteria should be considered:
20-28 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

 Long-term performance (loss of properties, cracking, etc.)

 Ease of installation (wrinkles, seaming, cold / hot weather requirements,
quality control and assurance, etc.)
 Cost
 Interface strength (if covered)
 Ease of repair (long term)
 Puncture resistance (falling objects, impacts, particle size of adjacent soil,
etc.)
 Tear strength and thickness (resistance to differential settlement)
20.4.1 Laboratory Testing

The following sections outline the typical laboratory tests that may frequently be
encountered in the design or construction quality assurance (CQA) process.
20.4.1.1 Physical Properties

Physical properties of geomembranes are related to mass, dimensions, and
composition. Upon receiving a geosynthetic product for installation, each
individual roll or product will have a certification sheet that provides various
physical properties, including mass per unit area, density, thickness, etc., which
will need to be checked against the design specifications for conformance. The
typical physical property tests, outlined in table 20.4.1.1-1, are not routinely
completed by the designer; however, conformance sampling during the
installation process commonly requires several of the laboratory tests listed below
to be completed as outlined in section 20.5.2. Typical values of physical
properties are provided by the geomembrane manufacturers.
Table 20.4.1.1-1. Common physical property laboratory tests (ASTM)

Physical property PE PVC CSPE fPP EPDM
Density D792 or D1505
Thickness D5199 (smooth) or D5994 (textured)
Thermal expansion D696
Carbon black content D1603 or D4218 (N/A for PVC and EPDM)
Dimensional stability D1204 or D1042 (N/A for LLDPE and HDPE)
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-29

20.4.1.2 Mechanical Properties

Mechanical properties of geomembranes include (1) the behavior of the
geomembrane under applied load, (2) the resistance to damage of the
geomembrane during installation, and (3) the interaction of the geomembrane
with adjacent materials. The mechanical behavior of geomembranes is chiefly
concerned with in-plane tensile stresses. Since the function of geomembranes is
primarily bidimensional, hence very thin, concentrated stresses can damage the
material. Finally, the interface shear strength between a geomembrane and the
adjacent material is critical in the stability of the system as well as the integrity
and strength of the seams within the geomembrane. The typical mechanical
property tests, outlined in table 20.4.1.2-1, are routinely executed during the
design and installation (quality control) phases.
Table 20.4.1.2-1. Common mechanical and hydraulic property laboratory tests
(ASTM)
Mechanical property PE PVC CSPE fPP EPDM

1 D6693 D882 D6693 D6693 D882
Tensile properties
(peel/shear)
Wide-width tensile strength D4885
Multiaxial tensile strength D5617
Tear resistance D1004 or D5884 (if reinforced)
2 D4833 or D5514
Puncture resistance
3 D1424, D1709, D1822, or D3029
Impact resistance
Interface shear strength D5321
Stress crack resistance D5397 N/A N/A N/A N/A
Permeability (water vapor) D5886 or E96
1
For reinforced membranes, use ASTM D751 and D413.
2
For reinforced membranes, ASTM D6241 may be more appropriate.
3
None of the outlined tests offer direct correlation with field conditions.
20.4.1.3 Endurance Properties

Any compromise in the physical property of the material over time will degrade
the longevity of the membrane product. The severity of material degradation is
polymer specific and typically includes increasing the brittle behavior in the
stress-strain response over time, but can also include a reduction of mechanical
properties, an increase in permeability, and failure of geomembrane seams. As
listed in table 20.4.1.3-1, there are a number of predictive tests that indicate
material suitability, although it should be mentioned that there has been extensive
testing completed for the procedures listed below that can direct the designer to
the proper polymer for the given climatic conditions [13, 14] without having to
complete the testing for site-specific conditions.
20-30 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Table 20.4.1.3-1. Common endurance property laboratory tests (ASTM)

Endurance property PE PVC CSPE fPP EPDM
Low temperature testing D746 D1790 D746 D1790 D746
High temperature testing D412 D638 D412 D638 D412
Oxidative degradation D3895 or D5885
Ultraviolet degradation D7238 (lab) or D4364 (field)

1 D5322
Chemical resistance
1
Chemical degradation is typically not a concern for most Reclamation reservoirs.
20.4.2 Interface Strength

Geomembranes placed on sloping surfaces are often subjected to shear stresses.
If the sliding resistance between the geomembrane and the adjacent material is
less than the shear stress, slippage occurs at the interface, and the lining system
or the entire structure relies on the anchor trench or becomes unstable. Slope
stability analyses should be performed according to chapter 4 of Design Standards
No. 13 [41] and as outlined in greater detail in section 20.4.10.1.
A slip surface may occur at any interface within the system—for instance,
between a geotextile and soil or between a geotextile and a synthetic drainage
layer. Therefore, the shear strength of all interfaces should be evaluated.
ASTM D5321 (Interface Direct Shear) is used to determine the shear strength
between soil-geosynthetic and geosynthetic-geosynthetic interfaces.
20.4.2.1 Interface Strength Scenarios

Two types of field situations are typically considered with respect to interface
strength. In the case of an anchor trench, a portion of the geomembrane is
embedded in the soil. If the exposed portion of the geomembrane is subjected to
tensile forces, these forces tend to pull the buried geomembrane out of the anchor
trench. However, the designer typically ignores any beneficial anchoring and
relies on interface friction between the geomembrane and adjacent soils to
provide stability. Secondarily, if an installed geomembrane on the upstream face
of a dam is covered by several feet of soil to protect it against environmental
degradation, the stability of the soil on the geomembrane must be considered.
Local or global sloughing failures can occur due to reservoir rise and fall along
the geomembrane/ soil interface.
Whereas geotextiles and geogrids have been subjected to extensive pullout

testing, geomembranes have been almost exclusively subjected to shear testing.
The reason is that anchor trenches for geomembranes are rarely a critical design
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-31

issue, whereas stability of slopes incorporating geomembranes is always a critical

issue. Consequently, only interface shear tests are discussed hereafter. Should
interface shear strength testing indicate inadequate values, shear strengths can be
increased by using a textured geomembrane in lieu of a smooth geomembrane or
by bonding the geomembrane to a geotextile. In layered seepage barrier systems,
interface strength testing should also consider other layers in addition to the
geomembrane interface (e.g., a clay soil comprising a layer within a seepage
barrier system may have weaker shear strength than the materials in contact with
the geomembrane).
20.4.2.2 Typical Interface Strength Values

Many authors have published results of shear tests with geomembranes in contact
with soils or with other geosynthetics: Saxena and Wong [15], Martin et al.
[16], Akber et al. [17], Williams and Houlihan [18], Degoutte and Mathieu
[19], Koerner et al. [20], and Eigenbrod and Locker [21]. A summary of
typical interface strength values are summarized in tables 20.4.2.2-1 through
20.4.2.2-3 from a database collected by Koerner and Narejo [22]. The strength
values are acceptable for preliminary design, but final design strength values
should be determined by interface direct shear testing using site-specific
materials.
Table 20.4.2.2-1. HDPE geomembranes against various materials

Peak Residual Peak Residual
friction friction adhesion adhesion
2 * 2
Interface #1 Interface #2 (degrees) (degrees) (lb/ft ) (lb/ft )
HDPE-S Granular soil 21 17 0 0
HDPE-S Cohesive soil
Saturated 11 11 150 0
Unsaturated 22 18 0 0
HDPE-S NW-NP GT 11 9 0 0
HDPE-S Geonet 11 9 0 0
HDPE-S Geocomposite 15 12 0 0
HDPE-T Granular soil 34 31 0 0

HDPE-T Cohesive soil
Saturated 18 16 210 0
Unsaturated 19 22 480 0
HDPE-T NW-NP GT 25 17 165 0
HDPE-T Geonet 13 10 0 0
HDPE-T Geocomposite 26 15 0 0
* 2
lb/ft = pounds per square foot
Note: S = smooth, NW-NP GT = nonwoven needle-punched geotextile, and T = textured.
20-32 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Table 20.4.2.2-2. LLDPE geomembranes against various materials

2 2
LLDPE-S Granular soil 27 24 0 0
LLDPE-S Cohesive soil 11 12 260 75
LLDPE-S NW-NP GT 10 9 0 0
LLDPE-S Geonet 11 10 0 0
LLDPE-T Granular soil 26 25 160 110

LLDPE-T Cohesive soil 21 13 120 145
LLDPE-T NW-NP GT 26 17 170 200
LLDPE-T Geonet 15 11 75 0
Note: S = smooth, NW-NP GT = nonwoven needle-punched geotextile, and T = textured
Table 20.4.2.2-3. PVC and CSPE-R geomembranes against various materials

2 2
PVC-S Granular soil 26 19 8 0
PVC-S Cohesive soil 22 15 19 0
PVC-S NW-NP GT 20 16 0 0
PVC-S NW heat bonded 18 12 0 0.1
PVC-S Woven, slit-film 17 7 0 0
PVC-faille NW-NP GT 27 23 5 0
PVC-faille NW heat bonded 30 27 0 0
PVC-faille Woven, slit-film 15 10 0 0
CSPE-R Granular soil 36 16 0 0

CSPE-R Cohesive soil 31 18 120 0
CSPE-R NW-NP GT 14 10 0 0
CSPE-R NW heat bonded 21 10 0 0
CSPE-R Woven, slit-film 11 11 0 0
Note: S = smooth, NW = nonwoven geotextile, NW-NP GT = nonwoven needle-punched
geotextile, and R = reinforced.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-33

20.4.3 Slope Geometry

In general, geomembrane-lined slopes no steeper than 3:1 (H:V) should be
considered for embankment dams. This is considered more prudent from a
constructability standpoint rather than a design constraint. Slopes steeper than 3:1
can be lined successfully with geomembrane, but installation tends to be more
difficult, and the installers will typically need to use safety ropes and other
specialized safety equipment, which can slow down the installation process. A
number of Reclamation projects have incorporated geomembrane installation on
slopes steeper than 3:1, including Warren H. Brock Reservoir.
Long slopes should also be avoided to reduce the possibility of overstressing the
geomembrane panels and seams during short-term loading such as placing
protective cover material or long-term loads due to reservoir fluctuations.
Geomembrane rolls should typically be installed vertically (from the crest down
the slope) with horizontal seams limited to the bottom third of the slope, although
seams on slopes are discouraged. If horizontal seams are placed on slopes, they
should be staggered so that they are at different elevations across the slope. The
recommended maximum slope length is typically 250 feet. If longer slopes are
needed, it is recommended that a bench be included in the design and that
horizontal seams are incorporated along the bench. If the design slope is longer
than 250 feet and an intermediate bench cannot be accommodated, the designer
should verify that the tensile strength of the geomembrane is not exceeded using
the equation shown below:
α = γT sin β x
Where:
α = The tensile force per unit width in the geomembrane (pounds per foot
[lb/ft])
γ = Unit weight of geomembrane (pounds per cubic foot [lb/ft3])
T = Thickness of geomembrane (ft)
β = Slope angle (degrees)
x = Distance parallel along slope (lb/ft)
If a protective cover is to be placed above the geomembrane, the design and

stability of the system must be verified in accordance with section 20.4.10.
20.4.4 Seam Design

Geomembrane rolls are sometimes installed horizontally (i.e., across the slope of
a dam) in the case of dams that have: (1) a small height (e.g., less than 30 feet),
20-34 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

(2) a great length (e.g., several thousand feet or more), and (3) an upstream slope
that is not steep (e.g., less than 3:1). In all cases, the design must ensure that such
horizontal seams will not be overstressed.
However, in the majority of cases, geomembrane rolls are installed along the
slope, or vertically. In these cases, it is important that the length of each roll be
slightly greater than the length of the slope at the location where this particular
roll is to be installed due to anchor trench and overlap usage. This requires
that, at the geomembrane selection stage, the designer verifies with several
manufacturers that they have the capability of manufacturing rolls of different
lengths, up to the maximum required length. To minimize waste, custom length
rolls can sometimes be ordered depending on the total quantity of geomembrane
required.
The success or failure of geomembrane installation depends to a great extent

on both short-term and long-term integrity of all seams. Further discussions
of seaming techniques in the field and in the factory are included in
section 20.5.1. It should also be noted that for thermally bonded geomembranes,
a minimum thickness of 60 mils is recommended to avoid poor seam
construction. This thickness should be considered appropriate for most projects,
unless other mitigating factors are involved such as difficult foundation
conditions, high propensity for differential settlement, etc.
20.4.5 Anchor Trench and Connections

This section presents a design method for designing anchor trenches and
provides practical information on ways to connect geomembranes to rigid
structures.
20.4.5.1 Anchorage Design

A typical geomembrane installation within a reservoir incorporates a liner that is
placed vertically along the slope and terminates into a shallow trench, which is
offset from the crest of the embankment by several feet (runout). The anchor
trench is typically excavated with a small backhoe or trenching machine. The
depth and width of the anchor trench must be determined to provide adequate
anchorage, but many manufacturers will specify a minimum runout length and
anchor trench depth of 3 feet and 2 feet, respectively, although the final
configuration should be based on site-specific considerations.
The recommended method for anchor trench design is outlined below [4],
although other published methods may be used [23]. A typical anchor trench
and associated free-body diagrams are shown on figure 20.4.5.1-1.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-35

Figure 20.4.5.1-1. Geomembrane anchor trench design: cross section and free-
body diagrams (adapted from [4]).
As will be shown below, the horizontal runout length between the slope break
and the trench, and the passive pressures constraining the vertical portion of
geomembrane within the anchor trench, are very effective at providing adequate
anchorage. Using the free-body diagram above and summing forces in the
horizontal direction, the following relationship is developed:
Fx  0
Tallow cos   FU  FL  FLT  PA  PP
20-36 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Where:
Tallow = Allowable force in geomembrane =  allowt (lb)

 allow = Allowable stress in geomembrane (pounds per square foot [lb/ft2])
t = Thickness of geomembrane (ft)
= Side slope angle (degrees)
FU = Shear force above geomembrane due to cover soil (lb/ft)
FL = Shear force below geomembrane due to cover soil (lb/ft)
FLT = Shear force below geomembrane due to vertical component of
Tallow (lb/ft)
PA = Active earth pressure against the backfill side of the anchor trench
PP = Passive earth pressure against the in-situ side of the anchor trench
Substitution of the above horizontal force summations with the appropriate design
variables leads to the following:
 2T sin  
Tallow cos    n tan  u LRO    n tan  L LRO   0.5 allow LRO  tan  L  PA  PP
 LRO 
Where:
n = Applied normal stress from cover soil (lb/ft2)

 = Angle of shearing resistance between geomembrane and adjacent
material either upper or lower interface (degrees)
LRO = Length of geomembrane runout (ft)
The values of active and passive earth pressure (PA and PP, respectively) are
derived from lateral earth-pressure theory, which is addressed in most
undergraduate soil mechanics textbooks as shown below:
PA  0.5 AT d AT   n K A d AT
PP  0.5 AT d AT   n K P d AT
Where:
 AT = Unit weight of soil in anchor trench (lb/ft3)

d AT = Depth of anchor trench (ft)
n = Applied normal stress from cover soil (lb/ft2)
KA = Coefficient of active earth pressure  tan 2 45   2
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-37

KP = Coefficient of passive earth pressure  tan 2 45   2

 = Soil internal angle of friction (degrees)
It should be noted that the shear force above the geomembrane is often neglected
due to cracks in the overlying soil.
When solving the above equations, there are two unknown variables of concern,
namely the length of geomembrane runout (LRO) and depth of the anchor trench
(dAT). Essentially, the designer must assume a runout length and then solve for
the required depth of anchor trench or vice versa. The factor of safety should
already be applied to the allowable force in the geomembrane (Tallow).
Typical stress values (σ) for various geomembranes at maximum and ultimate
failure for use in preliminary design are summarized in table 20.4.5.1-1. Most
manufacturers will provide maximum and ultimate stress values for Tallow
computations. Consideration can be given to having no anchor trench and
sufficient runout on a bench at the top of the slope (or dam crest); however, a
v-ditch is a preferred compromise. Setting the depth of the anchor trench (dAT)
equal to zero and solving for the runout length (Lro) will satisfy anchoring at the
top of the slope and minimize the tensile stresses in the geomembrane. A small
amount of movement is acceptable and expected to engage the geomembrane into
the slope materials.
Table 20.4.5.1-1. Typical tensile behavior of geomembranes [4]

1. 2.
Test property Units HDPE LLDPE PVC fPP-R
Maximum stress and 2 330 160 290 650
kip/ft
corresponding strain (%) (15) (400+) (210) (23)
Modulus 2 65 10 3 44
kip/in
Ultimate stress and 2 230 160 290 60
kip/ft
corresponding strain (%) (400+) (400+) (210) (79)
1
Values were derived from wide width tensile tests.
2
Reinforced.
Notes: Nominal thicknesses: HDPE = 1.5 mm, LLDPE = 1.0 mm, PVC = 0.75 mm, and
CSPE-R = 0.91 mm.
+ indicates specimen did not fail.
2 2
Kip/ft = and kip/in = kip per square inch
20.4.5.2 Connections to Rigid Structures

The designer must provide connections that maintain smooth transitions and
adhere to materials with minimal change in stiffness. Geomembrane connections
to rigid structures must fulfill two conditions:
 They must be watertight.

 Watertightness must not be impaired in case of differential settlements.
20-38 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Watertightness is encouraged by the following precautions:
 The concrete structure must be waterproof itself and, therefore, must be

constructed with waterproofing provisions such as waterstops.
 The concrete structure should be as smooth as possible, one or more

layers of soft rubber may be interposed between the concrete and the
geomembrane, and a batten strip, bolted to the concrete structure, should
maintain the geomembrane in close contact with the structure.
 A geomembrane cap strip can be used to cover the batten strip to prevent
leakage along the bolts. Batten strips with an oval cross section are
recommended to provide smooth support for the cap strip. Cap strips used
from crest to toe at the periphery of the dam face are potentially dangerous.
If such a cap strip leaks, it will be filled with water to a level equal to the
level of water in the reservoir. In case of drawdown of the dam, the cap
strip will not drain if the leak is near the top. The tube under pressure
formed by the cap strip may then burst, causing tears in the geomembrane.
Therefore, where a cap strip runs from the crest to the toe, the tube thus
formed must be filled with a plastic sealant approximately every 10 feet.
 The use of batten strips is not mandatory. Alternatively, geomembranes
may be glued on concrete, or they may be inserted in a slot in the concrete
structure, and backfilled with cement grout or resin.
Resistance to differential settlements can be enhanced by following the

recommendations made in section 20.4.8 and incorporating some slack in the
geomembrane next to the connection to provide for movement.
Two examples of connections of geomembranes with concrete structures are

presented on figures 20.4.5.2-1 through -2.
(a) (b)
Figure 20.4.5.2-1. (a) Geomembrane connection to the gallery at Codele

Dam showing batter of concrete face and (b) construction detail. Legend:
(1) supporting layer (bituminous concrete), (2) concrete cover, (3) geomembrane
liner, (4) geomembrane cutoff, (5) HDPE batten strip, (6) concrete, (7) butyl strip,
(8) bolt, (9) gallery, (10) clay-filled trench, and (11) rockfill.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-39

Figure 20.4.5.2-2. Geomembrane termination at Cixerri Dam, showing

significant batter and convex support system [24].
20.4.6 Leakage
Because the purpose of a dam is to retain water, and because the function of a
geomembrane is to act as a water barrier, leakage control is an essential part of the
design of any geomembrane application in a dam. Therefore, the design of all
geomembrane applications in dams should address leakage control. In all
applications, it is essential that the ability of the geomembrane to act as a barrier
be evaluated. Therefore, leakage analyses and calculations must be conducted as
part of the design of an embankment dam constructed with a geomembrane.
Leakage control design includes determining the type of liner, evaluating leakage,
and designing leakage collection and detection where applicable.
It should be recognized that geomembranes are not absolutely impermeable,

and none can be installed on a large area without a certain number of flaws.
Therefore, although dams equipped with geomembranes are likely to leak less
than other dams, leakage is not totally eliminated, and this fact should be taken
into account in the design. Also, geomembranes incorporated in a dam can be
breached in some extreme cases (e.g., earthquake, upstream slope instability), and
the design must be such that a large breach of the geomembrane does not trigger
significant damage to the dam or failure of the dam. Therefore, the following
considerations should be included in leakage control design:
20-40 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

 Leakage of water from the reservoir should be evaluated and minimized.

 When the soil in the dam and/or in its foundation is sensitive to water
(erodible, soluble, or collapsible soil, etc.), seepage of water into the soil
should be evaluated and minimized.
 If possible, the design of the dam should be such that leakage through the
geomembrane liner can be detected, evaluated, and located to allow the dam
owner to decide if and where repair is needed.
 In all cases, the design of the dam should be such that a major breach in
the geomembrane liner does not trigger deterioration of the dam (by
mechanisms such as internal erosion, excess pore water pressure, etc.),
which could lead to costly repair or even failure of the dam.
 In new dam construction, a geomembrane shall not be the sole engineering
control for seepage (i.e., filters and drains and other impervious elements
should be used).
 Water can find its way around the end of a geomembrane if the end is
submerged. Be aware where the geomembrane terminates in submerged
water and construct a cutoff at the edges as appropriate.
20.4.6.1 Leakage Evaluation

There are essentially two mechanisms of leakage through geomembranes [6, 25]:
fluid permeation through an intact geomembrane (diffusion) and flow through
geomembrane defects. Fluid permeation can be defined by applicable laboratory
testing and represents near negligible loss. Geomembrane defects include
pinholes and holes, which are defined by Giroud [25] as:
 Pinholes can be defined as openings having a dimension (such as

diameter) significantly smaller than the geomembrane thickness.
The primary sources of pinholes are manufacturing defects. Early
manufacturing techniques for geomembranes often resulted in a significant
number of pinholes. However, manufacturing processes, quality
assurance, and polymer formulations have advanced to a degree that
pinholes are now relatively rare.
 Holes can be defined as openings having a dimension (e.g., diameter)

about as large as, or larger than, the geomembrane thickness. Holes are
generally caused by puncture and tearing during handling, installation,
covering with soil, puncturing by gravel or cobbles from above or beneath,
and by defects incurred during seaming.
The rate of leakage due to permeation and pinholes is not significantly affected by
the material in contact with the geomembrane and, again, is very negligible for
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-41

reservoir loss and, therefore, will not be discussed further. In contrast, the rate of
leakage through holes is affected by the materials in contact with the
geomembrane, the contact between the soil and geomembrane (e.g., wrinkles),
geomembrane thickness, and geomembrane flexibility.
20.4.6.1.1 Leakage Due to Holes

As part of the preparation to develop leakage detection rules, a survey of
geomembrane liners placed with various degrees of quality assurance has been
conducted [6]. This survey, along with other field data, is summarized in
table 20.4.6.1.1-1 and indicates the anticipated number of installation defects
given installation quality control.
Table 20.4.6.1.1-1. Typical installation defects [4]

Installation quality Defects per acre
Excellent Up to 1
Good 1 to 4
Fair 4 to 10
Poor 10 to 20
Accordingly, two hole sizes are recommended by the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) [6] and Giroud [26, 27] for design:
 0.16 square inch (in2) for worst case conditions

 0.016 in2 for average case conditions
The larger hole should be considered for estimating anticipated seepage and
sizing filters and drains downstream.
Leakage rates through a hole in a geomembrane are typically attenuated by the

underlying soil. However, most equations to date developed by Bonaparte et al.
[28], Giroud [26], Touze-Foltz and Giroud [29], and Weber and Zornberg [30] all
incorporate restrictive head conditions. Giroud has a number of correlations for
leakage through a geomembrane underlain by high, medium, and low permeable
soils [32, 33, 26]; however, the head must be less than approximately 10 feet for
the above-referenced relationships to be applicable. Therefore, a modified
version of Bernoulli’s equation for free flow through an orifice originally
proposed by Bonaparte et al. [28] and Giroud [25] is recommended for use as
shown below:
Q  C d an 2 gh
20-42 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Where:
Q = Leakage rate (gallons per minute)
Cd = Coefficient of discharge typically taken as 0.6 (unitless)
a = Area of defect (ft2)
n = Number of defects (unitless)
g = Gravitational acceleration (feet per square second)
h = Head above liner (ft)
While the above equation is certainly conservative, it is one of the few

relationships that can function under high head conditions (i.e., >30 feet), which
is the case for the majority of Reclamation facilities. The leakage predicted from
the above relationship will be overestimated when the geomembrane is underlain
by a low permeability soil; however, the relationship is still included to provide an
order of magnitude estimate for design purposes.
20.4.6.2 Design Considerations to Avoid Puncturing of

Geomembranes
Testing at Reclamation and other laboratories has shown that a significant amount
of puncture protection to geomembranes can be accomplished when it is protected
by a geotextile. On a rough subgrade, the geotextile is placed first, followed by
the geomembrane (figure 20.4.6.2-1). On a slope, the geomembrane
surface against the geotextile should be textured to increase the sliding resistance
between the geotextile and geomembrane. The geotextile should be a nonwoven
needle-punched fabric or that determined by laboratory testing. Geomembranes
having subgrades with rounded particles are less likely to require a geotextile
protection layer than geomembranes having subgrades with angular particles.
As stated earlier, more elastic geomembrane materials (like LLDPE, PVC or fPP)
are better for rough subgrades or severe construction conditions where more
brittle, less elastic materials (e.g., HDPE) will be prone to tear or puncture. Stress
cracking is also more likely in the less elastic materials. A maximum height of
protrusion is commonly specified above the rolled final subgrade surface.
Rolling of the subgrade is usually performed by a smooth-drum roller up and
down the slope so as to be parallel with the layout of the geomembrane (see
figure 20.4.6.2-2).
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-43

Figure 20.4.6.2-1. Detail of liner placement at the top of the reservoir slope showing runout, geotextile
cushion, geomembrane, and cover materials at Black Lake Dam, Montana (BIA).
Figure 20.4.6.2-2. Final rolling of subgrade materials beneath the geomembrane liner
system at Black Lake Dam, Montana (BIA).
20-44 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.4.6.3 Leakage Collection and Detection

Leakage collection and detection systems are more commonly encountered in
tailing storage facilities, municipal waste repositories, and containment ponds
impounding contaminated waters or materials. However, there may be situations
in which a drainage system must be incorporated beneath or directly behind a
geomembrane—for instance, on the upstream face of a roller-compacted or
masonry dam where a synthetic drainage system such as geonet could be
incorporated or in the instance of a vertical cutoff wall behind which a granular
filter may be placed.
Drainage layers under geomembrane liners should be designed to handle the flow
of water resulting from leakage through the geomembrane (i.e., the drainage layer
should have enough flow capacity to convey the flow, and the drainage layer
and underlying soils should not be damaged by the flow). A drainage layer
could consist of either a granular filter material or a synthetic drainage layer
such as thick, needle-punched nonwoven geotextile, a geonet, or a geocomposite.
However, a geonet or geocomposite provides much better drainage than a
geotextile.
The first step in drainage layer design is to estimate the anticipated leakage
through the geomembrane using the methods outlined in section 20.4.6.1.1.
Then, either the flow capacity or hydraulic transmissivity of the associated
granular filter or synthetic drainage system must be determined to ensure
adequate drainage. There are numerous references that outline the above design
process for various design conditions, including water head, slope angle, granular
filter and synthetic drainage system composites, and compressibility limitations of
synthetic systems [31]. Chapters 5 and 8 of Design Standards No. 13 should be
referenced for the design of filters and control of seepage.
20.4.7 Uplift
20.4.7.1 Wind
In all geomembrane applications (landfills, pond linings, dams, etc.), uplift of
liners by wind can occur during construction. In addition, it may occur at
any time during applications where the geomembrane is exposed. Typically,
geomembranes in earthfill dam applications are either covered by soil on the slope
face or by the impounded reservoir in the basin, which would preclude uplift due
to wind. However, where the geomembrane must remain exposed, such as on the
upstream face of a concrete dam or steep section of an earthfill dam, any rips or
large defects in the membrane may introduce aerodynamic uplift caused by wind,
which may then lead to either geomembrane damage caused by high tension or
pulling of the geomembrane from its anchorage.
There are a number of practical approaches to reducing the propensity of wind

uplift for both the construction phase and final configuration of a geomembrane
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-45

installation. During construction, sandbag placement on the advancing

geomembrane edge is common, but is only effective if the sandbags are placed
continuously; otherwise, low velocity winds are capable of uplift, and the
sandbags may actually damage the membrane if moved during an uplift event.
Placing a thin protective soil cover, or thin soil berms, is very effective in
reducing uplift, even if only a few inches thick, and is more effective than random
sandbag placement. Temporary anchorage methodologies should be reviewed
with the installer prior to construction activities. Figure 20.4.7.1-1 shows
sandbags placed at the leading edge of a geomembrane panel to reduce the
possibility of wind uplift.
Figure 20.4.7.1-1. Temporary anchorage at leading edge of geomembrane with

sandbags.
The final configuration of the slope will also have a significant impact on wind
(and tractive force) uplift. If the geomembrane will be either exposed or partially
exposed, the designer may have to incorporate intermediate benches, intermediate
anchor trenches, pavement strips, geotubes, concrete slabs, etc., to effectively
constrain the geomembrane. Examples of a few of these possible design features
are shown on figure 20.4.7.1-2.
The analytical analysis of geomembrane uplift is beyond the scope of this

document; however, the topic is more thoroughly discussed in published literature
[34, 35, 36].
20-46 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.4.7.1-2. Design options for additional
geomembrane anchorage (a) anchor trenches,
(b) pavement or soil anchorage, (c) intermediate bench,

(d) intermediate anchor trench, (e) basin anchor trenches,
and (f) soil anchorage in basin.
20.4.7.2 Buoyancy
This problem occurs in applications associated with partial or total reservoir
lining and for dam raises. The design aspects discussed in section 20.4.8 address
the resistance of lining systems to differential settlements and lack of support.
There is some concern that an upstream geomembrane blanket in a reservoir basin

may be uplifted by pressures due to underlying water in the case of rapid
drawdown of a reservoir. Indeed, there is water pressure under a geomembrane
blanket in case of rapid drawdown; however, the situation is much less critical
than for a geomembrane located on the upstream slope of a dam. Because the
supply of water under the blanket is limited to the water contained in the soil
under the blanket, and because water is not compressible, a slight uplift of the
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-47

blanket releases the pressure. From this viewpoint, a geomembrane blanket is

much superior to a clay blanket, which could crack under the same circumstances.
One location where uplift of a geomembrane blanket is possible is near the toe of
the dam if water stored in the embankment of the dam creates an artesian situation
under the blanket. This situation can be avoided by proper internal drainage of
the dam, by loading the blanket near the toe of the dam with soil, or with one of
the designs outlined on figure 20.4.7.1-2 that increases the anchorage.
Another critical location is the upstream end of the blanket where the
geomembrane should be properly anchored in the ground to minimize the risk of
seepage water bypassing the geomembrane. Constructing a cutoff wall at the
upstream end of the blanket may help mitigate this issue.
Because the risk of geomembrane uplift does not seem to be critical if adequate
anchorage and drainage is provided, the use of valves, as suggested by Grossmann
and Sanger [37], does not appear to be justified in most cases.
20.4.8 Settlement
Geomembranes can fail due to differential settlements especially in areas where
the modulus of elasticity varies significantly in the underlying geologic media
(e.g., settlement between the face of the dam and abutments).
The discussions below address the issue of differential settlement, in particular:
 Connections with abutments

 Connections with concrete structures
20.4.8.1 Connections with Abutments

In order to safely use geomembranes, or any other type of facing, traditional
design and construction techniques should be used to minimize differential
settlements between a dam and its abutments. Traditional techniques include:
 Partial or total replacement of foundation soils

 Consolidation or dynamic compaction of foundation soils
 Shaping and smoothing of the abutments to avoid abrupt changes in slopes
 Proper selection of the materials used
 Saturation of rockfill
 Adequate compaction of embankment fill
20-48 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

 Increasing the thickness of geomembranes to obtain greater tear-resistant

properties
 Select a different geomembrane to obtain high elongation properties
20.4.8.2 Connection with Concrete Structures

There is a major risk of differential settlement at the connection between
geomembranes and concrete structures. From the standpoint of differential
settlement, there are two types of concrete structures:
 The concrete structures located at the periphery of the geomembrane such

as anchor beams, crests or caps of cutoff walls, etc.
 The concrete structures that penetrate the geomembrane such as intake or

spillway towers passing through the upstream face
Structures of the latter category should be minimized when possible because it is

extremely difficult, even impossible with some geomembranes, to place the
geomembrane with slack in all directions. However, differential settlement
may not be of much concern if the structures are founded on bedrock.
Structures located at the periphery, or edge, of the geomembrane are much easier
to handle especially if they comprise long straight stretches such as that shown on
figure 20.4.8.2-1.
Figure 20.4.8.2-1. Connection between geomembrane and concrete structure.

Stainless steel batten strip secured every 6 inches with stainless steel bolts.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-49

Placing geomembranes with wrinkles is not the best way to provide the required
slack to geomembranes to accommodate differential settlement for the following
reasons:
 Wrinkles are difficult to control during installation because of wind action,

thermal expansion and contraction, and stiffness of some geomembranes.
Placement methods to avoid wrinkles are outlined in Chappel et. al [38].
 Wrinkles tend to move downslope because they creep and also because
every time a geomembrane moves in relation to its support (as a result of
wind, thermal expansion and contraction, maintenance operations, etc.), the
resulting displacement is downslope.
 Wrinkles may be flattened by overburden or water pressure, which may
induce undesirable concentrated stresses in the geomembrane, especially in
seams as observed by Stone [39].
 Wrinkles often do not move (even when there is no soil on top of the
geomembrane) because of friction with the underlying material, although
they may be next to a zone where the geomembrane is under tension.
A better solution, as suggested by Giroud and Huot [40], consists of:
 Giving a convex shape to the embankment next to the concrete structure

(which will generate slack when the embankment settles in relation to the
structure)
 Placing localized low-friction geotextile between the geomembrane and
the embankment, but it must be limited to a rather small fraction of the
geomembrane area to minimize the risk of the geotextile-geomembrane
interface acting as a slip surface
 Constructing the concrete structure with adequate batter
This solution is illustrated on figure 20.4.8.2-2. However, it should be noted that

the first of the three above recommendations is possible only with straight
structures. It would be practically impossible to implement this recommendation
with a tower penetrating the geomembrane because it would require excessive
tailoring of the geomembrane. What appears to be a good solution when a cross
section is examined may prove to be impossible to implement in three
dimensions.
20-50 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.4.8.2-2. Correct connection between geomembrane

and concrete structures [40].
20.4.8.3 Use of Soil Reinforcement to Minimize Differential

Settlement
The use of soil reinforcement (with steel, geotextiles, or geogrids) may be used to
minimize differential settlement between two different zones of soils, which may
be the case when a dam is raised. Alternatively, the thickness of the geomembrane
can be calculated as outlined by Giroud [44], based upon the anticipated
differential settlement. If the membrane thickness is unreasonable, remediation
may be required to mitigate the anticipated foundation issue. A detailed design of
the above is beyond the scope of this design standard; however, readers should
consult chapter 9 of Design Standards No. 13 [41] for more information on static
deformation analysis or other numerous resources to reference geosynthetic soil
reinforcement design [7, 8].
20.4.8.3.1 Geomembrane Systems Overlying Voids

If very large voids or karstic formations are unavoidable, consider design
alternatives that include further foundation preparation and large-scale
remediation. The first solution should include an attempt to fill the void first with
soil, rock, or concrete. Two types of voids can be considered by the designer:
(1) deep voids (i.e., deep cracks, karstic collapse, and bedrock fissure) and
(2) shallow voids (i.e., soil dissolution, minor differential settlement, and
localized subsidence).
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-51

In the case of deep voids, it is assumed that, even if the geomembrane undergoes
large strains, it does not reach the bottom of the void. Therefore, in this case,
there are only two possibilities: (1) either the geomembrane bridges the
depression or (2) the geomembrane bursts.
In the case of shallow voids, three possibilities may occur: (1) the geomembrane
bridges the void, (2) the geomembrane bursts, or (3) the geomembrane reaches the
bottom of the void.
The design of a geomembrane on a void can be performed by combining the use

of the tensioned membrane theory [42] and classic soil arching theory [43].
Combining these theories, Giroud [44] has developed relationships that allow the
designer to select the required geosynthetic properties (including thickness),
determine the maximum void size that can be bridged for a given geosynthetic
system, and evaluate the load-bearing capacity of a given system.
For the sake of brevity, the design equations of the aforementioned reference are
not repeated herein. If the chosen geomembrane is not strong enough or too
deformable to meet the allowable deflection criterion (i.e., allowable strain),
several alternatives can be considered:
 Use a thicker geomembrane or an additional geomembrane layer,

(1) stronger to bridge the void, (2) with a higher modulus to minimize
deflection, or (3) more deformable to reach the bottom of the void, if
possible, and if compatible with the allowable deflection. This solution is
acceptable if the geomembrane meets the deflection criterion, if any.
 If it is impossible to find an acceptable geomembrane, the designer can
place a geotextile (typically a high-strength/high-modulus woven geotextile)
directly under the geomembrane. It may be preferable to select a bonded
geotextile/geomembrane composite to avoid slippage between the two
geosynthetics.
 If the geomembrane is underlain by a protective soil layer, this layer may be
reinforced with a high-strength/high-modulus geotextile or geogrid, which
forms a “reinforced” mattress beneath the membrane to reduce the
propensity for differential settlement or void development.
20.4.9 Exposed Versus Covered Geomembrane

In most geomembrane applications in dams, the geomembrane is used on, or near,
the upstream face, and in most of these applications, the geomembrane is overlain
by a protective cover. Some geomembranes (such as highly UV stabilized PVC
or HDPE) can remain exposed for an extended length of time with little decline in
their level of performance. However, most exposed geomembranes will degrade
20-52 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

over time and are also susceptible to damage from such things as rocks, debris,
equipment, wind uplift, overall environmental degradation, animal intrusion, and
vandalism.
20.4.10 Protective Cover Design

The design of protective covers should include two aspects: (1) stability of the
lining system (i.e., protective cover, geomembrane liner, and associated drainage
layers) under the effect of gravity forces, seismic actions, and pore water
pressures and (2) resistance of the protective cover to wave action. In many
instances, geomembranes used for dams are protected by a soil or concrete cover.
Movement of the cover can cause problems. For example, large movements
resulting from instability of a soil cover on a slope can affect the integrity of the
cover and damage the geomembrane. Also, small differential movements
between a concrete cover and a geomembrane may induce tensile stresses in the
geomembrane. In all cases, it is important to first verify that the geomembrane
itself is able to withstand its own weight on a slope with no cover material.
20.4.10.1 Soil Cover

Usually a minimum of two layers of cover materials are required. The first layer
closest to the geomembrane is used to protect the geomembrane. The smallest
possible particles are used to best protect the geomembrane. Rounded particles
are good, but must be stable on the slopes. The second and subsequent layer is
used for armor protection to resist wave action. The two layers should be filter
compatible with each other especially where wave action is expected.
When a soil cover is placed over a geomembrane, or any geosynthetic, the

gravity stresses increase dramatically. This may cause two types of movements:
(1) sliding within the soil cover and (2) sliding along the soil geosynthetic or a
geosynthetic/geosynthetic interface. Two cases must be considered for soil cover
stability evaluation: (1) a soil cover with a uniform thickness and (2) a soil cover
with a nonuniform thickness. Additionally, stability considerations during rapid
drawdown are discussed.
20.4.10.1.1 Stability for Uniform Soil Cover Thickness

In many cases, the soil cover has a uniform thickness. In this case, two types
of analysis can be considered: (1) infinite slope analysis and (2) finite slope
analysis.
20.4.10.1.1.1 Infinite Slope Analysis

A simple approach in the stability analysis of soil-geosynthetic systems on slopes
is to consider the slope to be infinite. This is generally true if the thickness of
the soil-geosynthetic system is small compared to the length of the slope. A
free-body diagram is shown on figure 20.4.10.1.1.1-1 for the idealized infinite
slope under consideration.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-53

Figure 20.4.10.1.1.1-1. Infinite slope stability free-body diagram.
If the behavior of the soil and the geosynthetic interfaces is governed solely by
friction (i.e., no soil cohesion or interface adhesion), the factor of safety against
slippage in an infinite slope is based on limit equilibrium and is given by:
resisting forces
FS 
driving forces
F N tan  W cos  tan  tan 

FS    
W sin  W sin  W sin  tan 
Where:
= Slope angle (degrees)
 = Friction angle between the soil cover and geomembrane (degrees)
W = Weight of overlying soil cover (lb) 2
F = Resisting force (lb)
N = Force normal to the failure plane (lb)
The equation above indicates that the soil cover overlying a geosynthetic system
on a slope is likely to be stable if the slope angle is less than the friction angle
between the soil cover and geomembrane.
2
Use buoyant weight if soil cover is submerged.
20-54 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.4.10.1.1.2 Finite Slope Analysis

In reality, slopes are not infinite, and slopes determined to be unstable from
“infinite slope” analysis could be stable. Two reasons for a finite slope to be
more stable than an infinite slope are:
 Geosynthetic Anchorage at the Crest. Geosynthetics are usually

anchored at the crest of the slope. As slippage along the critical
geosynthetic interface occurs, tensile forces are generated in the
geosynthetics located above the critical interface. These tensile forces
contribute to the stability of the potential sliding block.
 Soil Buttress at the Toe. The soil cover, at its toe, is assumed to rest on a
firm foundation. As slippage along the critical interface occurs, downward
movement of the soil cover is buttressed by the firm foundation. This “toe
buttressing effect” contributes to the stability of the soil layer.
The method presented hereafter [4] is valid for either cohesionless or cohesive
soils. For finite length slopes, there exists a small passive wedge at the toe of the
slope, above which the active wedge is located. A free-body diagram is shown on
figure 20.4.10.1.1.2-1 of a finite length slope with a uniform thickness of soil
cover.
Figure 20.4.10.1.1.2-1. Finite slope stability cross section and free-

body diagram.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-55

The factor of safety for the conditions described above is given by:
 b  b 2  4ac
FS 
2a
Where:
a  WA  N A cos  cos 

b  WA  N A cos  sin  tan   N A tan   Ca sin  cos   sin  C P  WP tan  
c  N A tan   Ca sin 2  tan 
W A = Total weight of the active wedge (lb)
𝐿 1 𝑡𝑎𝑛𝛽
= 𝛾ℎ2 (ℎ − 𝑠ℏ𝑛𝛽 − )
2
WP = Total weight of the passive wedge (lb)
𝛾ℎ2
= 𝑠ℏ𝑛2𝛽
NA = Effective force normal to the failure plane of the active wedge (lb)
= 𝑊𝐴 𝑐𝑜𝑠𝛽
= Unit weight of the cover soil (lb/ft3) (use buoyant when submerged)
h = Thickness of soil cover (ft)
L = Length of slope measured along the geomembrane (ft)
= Soil slope angle beneath the geomembrane (degrees)
 = Soil internal angle of friction (degrees)
 = Interface friction angle between cover soil and geomembrane (degrees)
Ca = Adhesion between active wedge soil cover and geomembrane (lb/ft2)
CP = Adhesion between passive wedge soil cover and geomembrane (lb/ft2)
If the factor of safety calculated using the equation above is below Reclamation
guidelines outlined in chapter 4 of Design Standards No. 13, it can be increased
by flattening the slope, using a tapered soil cover thickness that widens at
the base, or by using geosynthetics that result in a higher interface friction
(i.e., textured geomembrane).
20.4.10.1.2 Nonuniform Soil Cover Thickness

In some dams, the soil overlying the geomembrane has a nonuniform thickness.
As previously discussed, two types of movements may cause instability of the soil
cover/geosynthetic system: (1) sliding within the soil cover and (2) sliding at the
soil cover/geosynthetic interface. The first case can be analyzed using the
conservative infinite slope analysis. The classical wedge analysis can be also
used to evaluate the stability of a soil cover/geosynthetic interface. The designer
is encouraged to use two-dimensional, limit equilibrium software for the
evaluation of a tapered or nonuniform soil cover while adhering to the guidelines
outlined in chapter 4 of Design Standards No. 13 [41].
20-56 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.4.10.1.3 Stability During Rapid Drawdown

The methods presented above assume that the reservoir is either empty or full. If
the water level in the reservoir is lowered, the water level in the soil cover moves
down. If the drawdown of the reservoir is fast, excess pore water pressures
develop in the soil cover, which may render the cover unstable. This
phenomenon, known as “rapid drawdown,” exists when the soil cover
permeability is less than the value given by the following expression [45]:
k v
sin 2 
Where:
k = Required hydraulic conductivity (length/time)

 = Velocity of drawdown (length/time)
= Slope angle (degrees)
For typical drawdown rates, this equation indicates that only clean coarse sand
or gravel can be assumed to drain. If a cover consist of silty materials, this
expression may not work. It is essential during design of soil covers to consider
the rapid drawdown situation.
In the case of sliding along the geomembrane interface or in the soil, the worst
case for rapid drawdown occurs when the water level is drawn down from the
maximum level to the upstream toe. The stability of the soil cover can be
evaluated using the method presented above by considering pore pressures or
seepage forces within the soil cover. Alternatively, commercially available slope
stability computer programs can be used.
20.4.10.2 Concrete and Cement-Based Cover

Concrete or cement-based (e.g., soil cement) protective covers may also be used
to protect the upstream slope of dams constructed with a geomembrane liner.
Cement-based covers may be composed of prefabricated panels, slabs, pavers,
cast-in-place, or in the case of soil cement, placed with conventional earthmoving
equipment. Cement-based covers are usually stable under the effect of gravity
forces because of the high compressive strength and because they are typically
resting on a concrete foundation, such as a plinth, at the toe of the dam. The only
potential instability with these types of covers results from:
 Underpressures in case of rapid drawdown

 Shocks and underpressures caused by wave action
 Freeze/thaw action
Drainage between the cement-based cover and the geomembrane may be

necessary to minimize pressure buildup. A possible option for addressing the
required drainage is to place a thick, needle-punched nonwoven geotextile
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-57

between the concrete cover and the geomembrane. This geotextile could protect
the geomembrane from damage induced by the concrete cover during construction
and operation (especially under wave action). However, the designer must
thoroughly evaluate the stability of the above system. For the geotextile to
provide sufficient protection and to have adequate hydraulic transmissivity, a
minimum mass per unit area of 10 oz/yd2 is sometimes recommended, and
12–18 oz/yd2 is preferable.
The required hydraulic conductivity of the drainage layer to prevent the

development of excess water pressure in case of rapid drawdown can be evaluated
using the equation presented in section 20.4.10.1.3.
Therefore, a needle-punched nonwoven geotextile, with a hydraulic conductivity

greater than 3.28x10-3 feet per second (ft/s) under the compressive stress due to
the weight of the concrete cover, would provide adequate drainage for a
drawdown slower than 3.28 x 10-4 ft/s (i.e., less than 28 ft/day). In practically all
cases, drawdown will not be this rapid.
Conditions imposed by wave action are more severe because the water level then
fluctuates much faster than in the case of rapid drawdown. As a result, the
condition expressed by the equation in section 20.4.10.1.3 cannot be met by a
typical nonwoven geotextile. The drainage capacity can be increased by grooves
under prefabricated slabs, holes through the slabs, or drainage pipes inserted in
the concrete protection. Furthermore, there are some geocomposites that would
be advantageous for protecting the underlying geomembrane and increasing
transmissivity.
20.5 Specifications and Construction

Considerations
20.5.1 Seaming Techniques
Applicable seaming methods depend on the type of geomembrane; however,
hot-wedge welding is the preferred method of installation under most
circumstances. Some geomembranes can be seamed by several different methods,
which are presented in some detail below, as Reclamation has used numerous
techniques in the past to construct geomembrane systems. The most common
seaming methods for polymeric geomembranes are listed below:
 Methods involving heat only

 Methods involving supply of hot base products (extrusion products)
 Methods involving solvents and/or cements
 Methods involving vulcanizing tapes or adhesives
20-58 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Methods using heat are applicable only to geomembranes made with base
products sensitive to heat (i.e., thermoplastics or thermoplastic rubbers). All
seaming methods can be used in a plant or in the field, except the dielectric
method, which is not used in the field because it is sensitive to dust and humidity
and the equipment is cumbersome.
20.5.1.1 Types of Seams and Seaming Methods

Seaming techniques that are currently used in the factory to fabricate panels of
thermoplastic geomembranes, or in the field to assemble the panels or rolls of
geomembranes into a final liner, or both, include:
Chemical methods:
 Solvent welding with neat solvents

 Bodied solvents
 Special adhesives
Thermal methods:
 Heat gun
 Heat sealing
 Dielectric seaming
 Extrusion welding
 Hot wedge
 Ultrasonic
Table 20.5.1.1-1 presents a list of the possible alternative methods for seaming
polymeric materials depending on the polymer, type of compound, and location of
seaming (i.e., factory or field).
Table 20.5.1.1-1. Seaming methods for geomembranes

Geomembrane Extrusion Thermal Chemical Adhesive
type methods methods methods methods
1
HDPE X X –
LLDPE X X – –
PVC – X X X
CSPE – X X X
fPP X X – –
EPDM – – – X
1
X indicates available method.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-59

Figure 20.5.1.1-1 illustrates the configuration of the various seams and the
methods of seaming that are used. Seam overlap requirements vary with
geomembrane manufacturers, geomembrane type, and seaming procedure.
Recommended overlaps range from 4 to 12 inches.
Figure 20.5.1.1-1. Various seam configurations:

(a) chemical adhesive or fusion, (b) single hot wedge,
(c) dual hot wedge, (d) thermal or dielectric, and
(e) fillet extrusion weld.
20.5.1.1.1 Chemical Methods

Because of the solubility of noncrystalline thermoplastic polymer compositions
in appropriate solvents and the lack of crosslinks, a geomembrane based on a
noncrystalline thermoplastic polymer (e.g., PVC and CSPE) can be seamed with
chemical solvent mixtures or with solvents in which the geomembrane compound
has been dissolved to form a bodied solvent. Sometimes, solvents are not allowed
to be used in a water supply reservoir because of concerns regarding the effect of
the chemical solvents on water quality. Seaming by these techniques is described
in the next two sections.
20.5.1.1.1.1 Solvent Welding

Solvent welding of noncrystalline thermoplastic geomembranes with neat solvents
can be achieved by coating the mating surfaces of the geomembranes with a
solvent or a mixture of solvents suitable for the compound. The two surfaces are
then pressed together firmly (e.g., by “stitching” with rollers) on a firm base. The
time for such a seam to “cure” or set up ranges from 5 minutes to an hour
depending on the type of geomembrane and environmental conditions. Up to
28 days may be needed for the solvent to evaporate completely from within the
20-60 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

seam and for it to achieve full strength. Though this method can be used both in
the field and in the factory, it is sensitive to weather conditions (e.g., temperature,
humidity, and wind). Volatile solvents that may be desirable at lower
temperatures will evaporate too quickly at higher temperatures or may fail
under humid conditions to yield an adequate bond because of moisture
condensation. In making repairs, it is also necessary to change or refresh the
exposed surface to remove dirt, exudation from the geomembrane (e.g., waxes,
and moisture).
20.5.1.1.1.2 Bodied Solvents

The use of a bodied solvent to seam thermoplastic geomembranes is an adaptation
of the solvent “welding” methods described previously. A bodied solvent is a
solution of the geomembrane compound to be seamed in a mixture of solvents.
The “adhesive” is applied to both surfaces, and the two surfaces are pressed
together after becoming “tacky.” There should be no surface “skinning” or drying
of the adhesive when the two surfaces are joined.
The major advantage of a bodied solvent over a straight solvent is the increased
viscosity of the solution, which allows more control of the evaporation of the
adhesive and aids in making seams on a slope. Another advantage of bodied
solvents is that the dissolved polymer fills voids or imperfections in the surface of
the geomembrane and thus improves the consistency and strength of the seams.
As with solvent “welding,” bodied solvents can only be used with thermoplastic
materials that can be dissolved in a suitable mixture of solvents.
The bodied solvent technique can be used to seam geomembranes in the factory
and is particularly useful in the field. It has been used primarily in the seaming of
CSPE and PVC geomembranes and in making field repairs during the installation
of geomembranes. Testing of seams must wait until the solvent in the seam has
evaporated through the geomembrane or has been driven out by heat.
20.5.1.1.2 Thermal Methods

A variety of thermal seaming methods are applicable to thermoplastic
geomembranes that soften, melt, and flow at higher temperatures to fuse the
sheets being joined. Thermal seaming methods include:
 Heat gun
 Heat sealing
 Dielectric seaming
 Hot-wedge welding
 Ultrasonic welding
20.5.1.1.2.1 Heat Gun

Seaming with a heat gun has been used for all types of thermoplastic
geomembranes under both factory and field conditions, including repair of
unexposed liners. In this method, high temperature air or an inert gas, such as
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-61

nitrogen, is directed between two sheets to melt the surfaces to be joined. The
two pieces are then forced together with pressure and allowed to cool to form a
lap seam.
The major advantage of the heat gun method is its broad range of application to
many thermoplastic materials. The two disadvantages are the great care required
to obtain uniform, reproducible seams and the tendency of the hot air to oxidize
and degrade the surface of the geomembrane during the seaming process and thus
produce a poor bond. This method also requires that the surfaces to be joined be
clean and free of moisture, dust, oil, and all solvents. These requirements pose
problems when seaming in the field, particularly when seaming geomembranes
that have been exposed to the weather.
20.5.1.1.2.2 Heat Sealing

In this thermal seaming method, the heat required to melt and bond the two layers
of thermoplastic geomembrane is applied through the sheets by clamping them
between a pair of jaws that are quickly and reproducibly heated, normally by
passage of an electrical current through a resistance wire. The sheets remain
clamped for a preset period of time following cessation of the current, and the
molten polymer solidifies to form a lap bond.
The advantage of heat sealing is that the complete bonding cycle is readily
controlled by a timer, and thus, seams can be made rapidly and reproducibly.
Since exposure of the heated plastic to air is minimal, the problem of oxidation
and embrittlement is reduced.
Another form of heat sealing, which is not considered advantageous over

clamping, is a heated roller that can be used manually to simultaneously press and
melt together both sides of the seam. Both roller and clamp heat sealers share a
serious disadvantage in that heat must pass through the seam and, thus, are
generally limited in application to relatively thin geomembranes. With thicker
membranes, the bonding process is very slow, and the heated surfaces tend to
become fluid, flow, and thin down before the bonding surfaces are sufficiently
molten for fusion to occur.
20.5.1.1.2.3 Dielectric Seaming

In dielectric seaming, heat is generated internally within the pieces of
geomembrane to be joined by directing electromagnetic energy in the
radiofrequency region to the seam. The energy field oscillates and causes the
permanent or induced dipoles in the polymer to oscillate with the same frequency,
creating internal friction and heat. Advantages of dielectric heating are that the
entire cross section of the geomembrane is heated quickly and uniformly, the
heating process can be instantly started and stopped, the method is very efficient
as it does not generate waste heat, and the process is readily controlled and highly
reproducible. Pressure is applied until the area being seamed has cooled and a
strong bond is formed.
20-62 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Dielectric seaming can only be used with geomembranes based on thermoplastic

polymers synthesized from easily polarizable monomers. The presence of water
in an exposed geomembrane can result in internal blowing and sponging of the
geomembrane. This technique is suitable only for factory operations in which the
environmental requirements of the equipment can be met. Geomembranes that
can be seamed by this technique are based on such polymers as PVC, CPE, and
CSPE; polyethylenes (PEs) cannot be seamed by this technique. Within these
limitations, dielectric seaming provides very rapid and reliable seaming, but it is
not suitable for field seaming of geomembranes.
20.5.1.1.2.4 Hot-Wedge Welding

The hot-wedge method consists of a hot electrically heated element in the shape
of a blade or V-shaped wedge that is passed between the two sheets to be sealed.
Contacting the two sheets to be seamed together, the heated element melts
and smears the two surfaces, causing fresh material to come to the surface.
Immediately following the melting, roller pressure brings the molten surfaces
together to form a homogeneous fused bond.
The hot-wedge method is particularly suited for LLDPE, HDPE, and PVC
geomembranes thicker than 0.75 mm (30 mil), but it is also used with reinforced
thermoplastics. Single-hot-wedge and dual-hot-wedge systems
(figure 20.5.1.1.2.5-1) are both available. The dual-hot-wedge weld forms a
continuous air channel between two welds. The air channel can be used as a
means of testing the bond continuity when air pressure is injected into it.
Welding rate (movement of the machine) as well as temperature and roller
pressure are adjustable and continuously monitored. Adjustments are made
according to environmental conditions such as ambient temperatures and
moisture. The dual-hot-edge technique is preferred by Reclamation because of its
reliability and verifiability.
The hot-wedge method has been used in both the factory fabrication of panels and
in field installation. It is particularly suited to long, continuous, straight seams.
However, without special modification, it is not suitable for making repairs
because of the irregularity of the shapes required to patch liners. A closed loop
cannot be welded using this equipment.
Dual-hot-wedge welding is considered to be a superior seaming method as

compared to ultrasonic welding. Reclamation practice is to specify only dual-hot
wedge welding for seaming and only allow extrusion welding for patches and
penetrations unless unusual circumstances are present.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-63

Figure 20.5.1.1.2.5-1. Dual-hot-wedge welder.
20.5.1.1.2.5 Ultrasonic Welding

A newly introduced welder for seaming geomembranes involves the use of
ultrasonic energy that is designed to concentrate the vibrational energy at
the point of contact of the two geomembranes to be seamed, causing the
geomembranes to become molten as a result of the heat generated by frictional
activity. Immediately upon melting, the membrane surfaces pass through two
rollers that squeeze the two sheets together to create a bond from 1 to 2 inches in
width. The welder is mounted on a three-wheel frame. The rollers, which are
motor driven, serve to propel the unit at a controlled rate along the seam line.
This seaming method has been applied to thermoplastic films from 0.010 to
0.125 inch thick and may not be suitable for thicker geomembranes.
20.5.1.1.2.6 Extrusion Method

Extrusion welding is more commonly used for geomembrane repairs or small
seaming jobs, such as around corners or near structures, rather than large seaming
tasks. Seaming of HDPE geomembranes is being performed in the field with a
variety of proprietary and specially designed seaming equipment based on the
extrusion of molten HDPE of the same composition as the liner either between the
geomembranes being seamed to form a lap weld or at the edge of the top sheet to
form a bead or fillet. Also, seaming equipment based on heat guns has been
devised in which coiled plastic welding rods or strips can be melted and placed.
The rod is fed to the seam area to form a fillet-weld seam.
In the first extrusion welding procedure, a jet of hot air is injected into the overlap
area to blow away debris and heat the area to be welded. Directly following the
hot air, a ribbon of molten polymeric compound of the same composition to that
20-64 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

of the geomembrane being seamed is injected into the overlap through an extruder
nozzle. A roller moving behind the extruder nozzle presses the overlap together
so the sheets will be fused by the extruded ribbon. Welding speed, pressure roller
movement, and temperature are adjustable with the extrusion equipment. The
result can be a homogeneous weld that is immediately load bearing.
In the second extrusion welding procedure, a hand-held extruder, in which pellets

or strips are fed and melted, places a bead or fillet of the molten PE at the edge of
the overlap of the two geomembranes that are being seamed. The surfaces of the
geomembranes are always buffed and cleaned prior to seaming; also, the edges of
thicker geomembranes are beveled to give greater surface and to ensure that air
pockets are not left at the edge of the top geomembrane. In performing this seam,
the top geomembrane is positioned and tacked to the lower geomembrane through
the use of heat guns or gum tape between the two geomembranes. This type of
seaming is used both in assembling the geomembranes and in the repair and
patching of geomembranes.
With extrusion and fusion seaming methods, continuous seams of extended length
can be made in the field at a broad range of ambient temperatures. The critical
temperature is that of the geomembrane and the extrudate. Welding can be
carried out at geomembrane temperatures greater than 35 degrees Fahrenheit
(°F). With extra measures such as (1) slowing down welding rate, (2) preheating
the sheet, and (3) setting up windshields for the welder, welding is possible down
to sheet temperatures of 5 °F. Success at these low temperatures should be
verified by test welds.
Extrusion seaming methods, as with all other seaming methods, require careful
preparation of the surfaces to be bonded (e.g., drying and buffing, removal of any
oxidized layer, as well as proper adjustment of temperatures at the surfaces of the
layers to be joined) to ensure blending and molecular mixing of the polymeric
compound at the interface.
20.5.1.1.3 Other Bonding Methods for Seaming Geomembranes

In addition to the seaming methods, described previously for thermoplastic and
thermoplastic rubber geomembranes, other methods are used in the seaming of
crosslinked geomembranes (i.e., butyl rubber [IIR], EPDM, polychloropene [CR],
and some thermoplastics). Discussions of these seaming methods are included for
information because geomembranes currently in service were seamed by these
methods and because Reclamation has conducted research of these methods.
Other bonding techniques, including hot vulcanization and vulcanizing adhesives

have been used, but are no longer common.
20.5.1.1.3.1 Solvent Cements and Contact Adhesives

“Solvent cements” is an expression used by the adhesive industry to refer to
any of a large variety of chemical adhesives that are applied dissolved in a
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-65

nonaqueous solution. The strength of the bond is achieved either

contemporaneously with or after the volatilization of the solvent. Thus, a
solvent cement can be anything from a solution of a thermoplastic resin to a
contact cement. Two types of solvent cements are of interest to the lining
industry:
 Contact cements
 Chemical adhesives that volatilize their solvent while forming the
adhesive bond
Surfaces to be bonded by the second type of adhesive are usually pressed together
while the solvent cement is still “wet.” Because polymeric geomembrane
materials can have low permeability to a number of solvents, it is important to
choose a chemical adhesive that can volatilize out of the seam assembly. This can
happen when the adhesive either dissolves or partially dissolves the surface of the
geomembrane and forms what might be called an “interpenetrating” bond with the
lining material.
Contact cements are adhesives that are applied wet to surfaces of geomembranes
that are to be bonded and allowed to dry to a “nontacky” and solvent-free state
before the two surfaces are joined. The use of this type of adhesive requires
careful alignment of the geomembrane before bonding because the joined surfaces
should not be realigned after assembly. After joining, the seam should be rolled
with a steel or plastic roller in a direction perpendicular to the edge of the seam.
Based on meeting safety requirements, solvent cements could be used either in the
field or in the factory to seam geomembranes; however, they are more likely to be
used only in the field.
20.5.1.1.3.2 Tapes
Tapes have been used in the past to seam geomembranes in the field. They are
made with pressure-sensitive adhesive applied either to both sides of a flexible
substrate or to a flexible backing. The latter is removed once the tape has been
placed on one of the surfaces to be joined. Tapes can be used to hold the
geomembranes in place while another seaming technique is used, or they can be
used to provide the permanent bond.
Tapes can be used to seam HDPE and LLDPE geomembranes in the field;
however, the use of tapes alone for making permanent seams in geomembranes is
not recommended.
20-66 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.5.2 Construction Quality Assurance and Quality

Control Measures
Construction quality assurance is a planned and systematic pattern of all means
and actions designed to provide adequate confidence that items or services meet
specification requirements and will perform satisfactorily in service. In
the context of geomembrane-lined facilities, CQA refers to means and actions
employed by Reclamation through the quality assurance team to ensure
conformity of the design, production (i.e., manufacture and fabrication) and
installation with the quality assurance plan as well as with drawings and
specifications.
The sections below present the elements of CQA pertinent to the installation of
geomembranes in embankment dam applications. A quality assurance plan is a
document, prepared as part of the CQA, that describes the actions required in
order to ensure the highest quality during all phases of the design, construction,
and operation of the geomembrane-lined facility.
The CQA plan for a specific project should delineate in great detail the
responsibilities and interactions of the various parties. Several of the parties
should possess specific credentials and/or qualifications in order to demonstrate
an acceptable level of competence to perform the assigned role. The following is
a listing of qualifications required of the various parties involved with the
manufacture, fabrication, installation, and transportation of geomembranes and
other geosynthetic components of embankment dams:
 Manufacturer – The geomembrane manufacturer is responsible for

production of geomembranes from raw polymer. The manufacturer should
be required to demonstrate adequate production capability to produce
quality materials with consistent properties. The manufacturer should
demonstrate experience in producing significant quantities of similar
materials and be able to show adequate quality control facilities and
procedures for the past as well as the present products. The geomembrane
manufacturer should be pre-qualified and approved by Reclamation.
 Polymer or Resin Supplier – The polymer or resin supplier produces and
delivers raw polymer (typically in the form of flakes or pellets) to the
manufacturer. Qualifications of the polymer supplier are specific to the
manufacturer’s requirements. The polymer supplier should have a
demonstrated history of providing raw polymer with consistent properties.
 Fabricator – The geomembrane fabricator is responsible for the fabrication
of factory panels of geomembranes constructed from rolls received from
the manufacturer. The fabricator may also be responsible for delivery of
the factory panels to the project site. The fabricator should show
documentation from the manufacturer certifying experience in fabricating
and handling of the manufacturer’s products and special equipment.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-67

 Transporter – The transporter is responsible for transporting geomembrane

rolls from the manufacturer to the fabricator on the site and/or factory
panels from the fabricator to the site. All personnel responsible for loading,
transporting, and unloading the geomembranes must be fully aware of the
consequences of damage to the geomembranes and be familiar with the
handling and transporting constraints required by the manufacturer and/or
fabricator.
 Installer – The geomembrane installer is responsible for the field handling,
storing, placing, seaming, loading (against wind), and other aspects of the
geomembrane installation. Adjusting and seaming the geomembrane panels
to site-specific conditions is the responsibility of the installer. The
experience of the installer is critical to fitting long rectangular sheets to a
variable ground surface without wrinkles, folds, excessive waste, or
seaming. Each job is different, so expertise with geomembrane installation
is vitally important. The installer may also be responsible for transportation
of the geomembrane to the site and may also be responsible for anchor
trenches and all temporary anchoring or loading required to support the
geomembrane during installation. The installer should show documentation
from the manufacturer certifying experience in the installation of the
manufacturer’s products and special equipment. The installer should have
significant experience on similar projects and be able to provide resumes of
experienced personnel who will be involved in the project.
 Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) – The COR and inspectors
should have adequate training prior to installation of geomembrane. The
COR should implement an inspection program to verify that the
geomembrane is installed and constructed as intended. An effective
inspection program depends largely on recognition of all construction
activities that should be monitored and on assigning responsibilities for the
monitoring of each activity. This is most effectively accomplished by and
verified by the documentation of quality assurance activities. The inspector
should document that all quality assurance requirements have been
addressed and satisfied. The designer should consider post-construction
leak detection to verify that the geomembrane is functioning as intended.
See section 20.5.10.2 for a discussion of possible leak detection techniques.
20.5.3 Geomembrane Factory

In many cases, rolls are transported directly to the site, and the fabrication of large
panels by seaming individual sheets at an offsite location is not necessary.
Geomembrane rolls are sometimes installed horizontally (i.e., across the slope of
a dam, but this should be avoided if at all possible). In the majority of cases,
geomembrane rolls are installed down the slope. In these cases, it is important
that the length of each roll be slightly greater than the length of the slope at the
location where a particular roll is to be installed. Therefore, the manufacturer
20-68 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

should have the capability to manufacture rolls of different lengths, up to the

maximum required length, and that rolls are properly labeled because lengths of
the various rolls may vary.
The following should be requested from the manufacturer at the time, or shortly
before, the geomembrane rolls are delivered to site:
1. A copy of each of the Quality Control Certificates on each lot of resin

issued by the resin supplier for the specific material for this project,
including certification of the resin for extrusion welding.
2. The results of quality control testing conducted by the manufacturer on the

resin used in manufacturing the specific material for this project.
3. A listing that correlates the resin to the individual geomembrane rolls and
welding rods.
4. A copy of the geomembrane roll Quality Control Certificates. It is

suggested that the certificates be supplied at a minimum frequency of one
per every 50,000 square feet of geomembrane material produced. The
certificates should contain test results of properties listed in the section
below.
20.5.3.1 Conformance Testing

During manufacturing of the geomembrane, conformance testing conducted by
Reclamation should be completed on samples to verify that the material meets the
specification requirements. It is suggested that the geomembrane be tested every
150,000 ft2 and that samples be taken across the entire width of the sheet. The
samples should not be taken within the first 3 feet of the roll. The tests listed in
table 20.5.3.1-1should be conducted on each conformance sample.
Table 20.5.3.1-1. Suggested minimum geomembrane tests (ASTM)

Description Test procedure
Thickness D5199 (smooth) or D5994 (textured)
Compound density D1505 or D792
Carbon black dispersion D5596
Carbon black content D1603 or D4218
Ultimate tensile strength D6693 Type IV
Ultimate elongation D6693 Type IV
Puncture resistance D4833 or D5514
Shear strength D6392 or D751
Peel strength D6392 or D751
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-69

20.5.4 Large Panel Fabrication

Large panels can be fabricated by seaming rolls together in a fabrication plant.
This is typically done with flexible geomembranes, such as PVC and CSPE
geomembranes, that are available in narrow rolls. Because HDPE and LLDPE
geomembranes are stiff and are usually available in large rolls, large panel
fabrication is typically not performed.
Fabrication of geomembranes that combines the rolls into large panels is

accomplished to meet the actual field conditions at the site. The rolls are factory-
seamed whenever possible into the largest sections that are manageable, which
generally weigh 2 tons or contain 20,000 ft2. In general, the geomembrane is
rolled onto handling tubes, except for some thin geomembranes that may be
accordion-pleated, folded, and shipped to the site in boxes [4].
20.5.5 Transportation
Transportation is the process of shipping or transporting geomembrane rolls or
factory panels from the manufacturing plant to the site, from the manufacturing
plant to the fabrication plant, or from the fabrication plant to the site. Three
important considerations relevant to transportation are packaging, labeling, and
delivery.
20.5.5.1 Packaging
Care should be taken to ensure that the geomembrane rolls or panels are not
damaged during transportation. Fabricated geomembrane panels are usually
shipped accordion-folded in cardboard boxes. The use of wooden boxes with
nails are not recommended because they can cause severe damage to
geomembrane panels if the nails come in contact with the geomembrane during
transportation.
Rolls shipped directly from a manufacturing plant to the site are often
unprotected. As a result, damage can occur during handling, and the first 10 feet
(approximately 1 roll wrap) of geomembrane may have to be discarded. In some
cases, the entire roll could be damaged and must be discarded.
20.5.5.2 Labeling
The package containing each roll or panel should bear a label indicating:
 Manufacturer’s name
 Geomembrane type
 Thickness
 Roll number
 Batch or lot number
 Panel installation number (if applicable)
20-70 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

 Roll dimensions and weight

 Special handling instructions (if required)
20.5.5.3 Delivery
Upon delivery of the geomembrane rolls or panels, it is important to review all the
labels on the packages to verify that the proper material and that all required rolls
or panels have been delivered. The condition of the products should be inspected
before and after removing the tiedown restraints. Unloading and transport to
temporary storage should be monitored. Wide, cloth straps or steel pipes threaded
through the rolls should be used for lifting. Do not transport rolls with the forks
of a fork lift or other method that could potentially damage the geomembrane.
20.5.6 Storage
Care should be exercised to prevent damage to the membrane before it is
installed. All geomembranes should be stored out of sunlight if possible to
prevent degradation. The geomembrane should be stored on a prepared surface to
prevent punctures. The manufacturer’s recommended limits for stacking rolls on
top of each other should be obtained and followed, as overstacking of rolls can
cause damage. The geomembrane should also be protected from excessive heat,
cold, cutting, puncture, or other harmful conditions. An additional, important
consideration in storing geomembranes at a site is prevention of vandalism and
theft.
Once deployment of the geomembrane begins, it can be moved from the storage
site to the construction site by means of a front-end loader or other suitable piece
of equipment with proper slings as shown on figure 20.5.6-1 or other lifting
devices. Care should be exercised to avoid damage to the geomembrane.
Figure 20.5.6-1. Storage of

geomembrane rolls on top
of geotextile to prevent
damage from underlying
material (note the use of
nylon slings for lifting).
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-71

20.5.7 Deployment
20.5.7.1 Subgrade Acceptance
The subgrade should be inspected to make sure that it is firm and free of sharp
rocks, debris, or standing water. If inspection of the soil surface indicates the
need for further fine finishing, this work should be performed as required. The
subgrade should be inspected on a daily basis to verify that it is acceptable for
deployment. If necessary, the subgrade should be returned to the condition that
was originally accepted prior to geomembrane deployment. In some instances of
rough conditions, additional material such as clay or sand may need to be spread
and recompacted to achieve a uniform, smooth surface. An example of an
acceptable subgrade surface is shown on figure 20.5.7.1-1.
Figure 20.5.7.1-1. Subgrade preparation prior to geomembrane installation.
20.5.7.2 Installation Planning

A panel layout drawing, typically supplied by the installer, showing the proposed
installation layout that identifies field seams, including locations of pipe
penetrations and connections to appurtenant structures, should be reviewed and
approved prior to placement of geomembrane. The layout should be sufficiently
detailed so that it can be used as a construction plan and should include items
such as panel dimensions, panel numbers, seam numbers, and connections to
appurtenant structures.
20.5.7.3 Visual Observation

Visual observations that should be documented during field operations include:
 Observations to ensure that the geomembrane is free from dirt, dust, and
moisture
20-72 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

 Observations to ensure that the seaming materials and equipment are as

specified
 Observations to ensure that a proper foundation is available for deployment
and seaming
 Observations of weather conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, and wind)
to ensure that they are acceptable for seaming
 Measurements of temperatures, pressures, and speed of seaming, when
applicable, to ensure that they are as specified (e.g., gages and dials should
be checked and recorded)
 Observations to ensure that the geomembrane is not damaged by equipment
or personnel during the seaming process
Figure 20.5.7.3-1 shows a typical example of seaming operations being

documented.
Figure 20.5.7.3-1. Visual observation of dual-hot-wedge

welder seaming operations.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-73

20.5.7.4 Placement
In general, panels should be placed so that field seams are directed up and down
the slope. This minimizes short-term stresses on field seams during placement of
a protective cover and minimizes long-term stresses on seams due to fluctuating
reservoir loads. In order to prevent wind damage, a sufficient ballast, such as
sand bags, to prevent uplift of the geomembrane panels should be supplied.
Deployment of geomembrane during adverse weather conditions should be
avoided if it will preclude material seaming on the same day as deployment.
The geomembrane should be pulled relatively smooth over the subgrade. If the
subgrade is smooth and compacted, then the geomembrane should be relatively
flat on the subgrade. However, sufficient slack must be left in the geomembrane
to accommodate possible shrinkage due to temperature changes, which may result
in tension in the geomembrane. It is very difficult to readjust a geomembrane
sheet that has already been deployed, particularly textured sheet, due not only to
self-weight and friction with the subgrade, but oversized soil particles may be
rolled out of the subgrade and cause subsequent damage to the membrane when
covered with soil and the reservoir. Care must be taken to avoid shifting a
deployed geomembrane sheet.
It is important to make sure that no “bridging” occurs in the geomembrane in

which angles are formed by the subgrade directly under a geomembrane
(i.e., meeting of two berms at a 90-degree angle). Bridging is a condition that
exists when the geomembrane extends from one side of an angle to the other,
leaving a void beneath the geomembrane at the apex of the angle. Bridging
occurs most often at penetrations and where steep sidewalls meet the subgrade.
Particular attention has to be directed to keeping the geomembrane in contact with
the subgrade at these locations and keeping it in a relaxed condition.
On embankment dam slopes, bridging may occur if there is a horizontal bench

across the upstream slope. In this case, it may be preferable to install the
geomembrane in two stages with a horizontal seam on the bench. Also, care
should be taken not to install geomembranes on areas that may eventually become
depressed as a result of water pressure. Geomembrane failures have been
reportedly caused by the settlement of poorly backfilled trenches for underdrains.
A geomembrane should be installed during dry weather, between ambient

temperatures of 35° F and 100° F, unless special measures are taken. To the
extent practicable, all panels should be installed in similar temperature conditions
to avoid length differences between adjacent panels, resulting in “fish mouths”
during seaming. Installation during extremely cold, extremely hot, and/or wet
weather can be performed, but it should be demonstrated that adverse weather
conditions do not affect the integrity of the installed liner. Particular care should
be taken when installing HDPE geomembranes because they have a high
coefficient of thermal expansion, and undesirable wrinkles could result during
installation in hot weather conditions. Considerations to avoid this situation are to
20-74 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

place the geomembrane at night, or if hot weather cannot be avoided, select an

alternative geomembrane type or color that will not expand excessively in hot
weather.
20.5.8 Seams
An important aspect of the quality assurance of geomembrane installation is
the complete documentation of seaming operations, which includes a record
indicating, for each section of seam, the name of the operator, identification of
the equipment used, the date, the weather conditions, etc. Prior to seaming
geomembrane rolls or panels, an inspector should observe the trial seams
(discussed in section 20.5.8.3) performed at the beginning of every shift on
extraneous pieces of geomembrane to test the operators and their equipment. A
successful trial seam only indicates that the operator and equipment perform
adequately at the time and under the conditions of the trial and can be used in that
shift for making the seams.
All seam and nonseam areas should be subjected to 100-percent visual

examination for identification of defects, holes, blisters, undispersed raw
materials, and any sign of contamination by foreign matter. Because light
reflected by the geomembrane helps to detect defects, the surface of the
geomembrane should be clean at the time of examination. The geomembrane
surface should be cleaned by the installer if dust or mud inhibits inspection.
20.5.8.1 Seam Layout

In general, seams should be oriented parallel to the line of maximum slope
(i.e., oriented down, not across the slope). In corners and odd-shaped geometric
locations, the number of field seams should be minimized. If horizontal seams
cannot be avoided, they should not be closer than 5 feet from the toe of the slope.
The seams should also be aligned to prevent wrinkles and “fish mouths.” If a
“fish mouth” or wrinkle cannot be avoided during installation, it should be
removed and capped. Panels of geomembrane should have sufficient overlap to
allow peel tests to be performed on the seam.
20.5.8.2 General Seaming Procedures

The following is a list of general procedures to follow when seaming adjacent
panels together:
 Areas to be seamed should be cleaned and free of moisture, debris, or any

marking on the geomembrane.
 Use a flat board, slip sheets, or similar hard surface directly under the seam
overlap to achieve proper support if required.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-75

 Cut “fish mouths” or wrinkles at the seam overlap along the ridge of the
wrinkle in order to achieve a flat overlap. The “fish mouths” or wrinkles
should be seamed, and if the overlap is inadequate, it should be patched
with an oval or round patch of the same geomembrane material extending a
minimum of 6 inches beyond the cut in all directions.
 Extend seams to the outside edge of the panels placed in the anchor trench.
T-seams are defined as a location where three panels intersect each other and a
dual wedge weld typically crosses another seam at approximately 90 degrees.
T-seams should be capped with a geomembrane sheet that extends a minimum of
1-foot beyond the T-seam intersection in all directions and either extrusion
welded or chemically welded, depending on the geomembrane material.
20.5.8.3 Trial Seams

It is recommended that trial seams be conducted for all types of welds to be used
at the beginning of each seaming period and within 30 minutes of commencement
of seaming and immediately following any work stoppage (i.e., lunch, weather
conditions, etc.) that are greater than 30 minutes or more for each seaming
apparatus used that day. If ambient temperatures changes more than 20 degrees,
new trial seams are required. The trial seams should be at least 10 feet long and
be tested for peel and shear strength using an onsite tensiometer. Seaming of the
geomembrane panels should not commence until all trial seams have passed peel
and shear tests. As part of the trial seam procedure, the installer should mark the
test weld with the date, ambient temperature, welding machine number, welding
technician identification, machine temperature, and machine settings. An
example of a trial seam is shown on figure 20.5.8.3-1.
Figure 20.5.8.3-1. Trial seam performed on suitable, clean surface.
20-76 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.5.9 Patching and Repairs

It is important that specifications include procedures to follow in the event of
failing destructive tests. This is especially true if the test results from the
laboratory lag significantly behind the placement of cover material. Similarly, the
specifications must clearly establish procedures for repairing holes caused by test
sampling. Currently used tests to evaluate seam and patching repairs are outlined
in section 20.5.10.1.
20.5.10 Field Testing

20.5.10.1 Seams
Geomembrane seams should be subjected to nondestructive testing to evaluate
seam continuity. Continuity is the term used to describe the existence, but not the
strength, of the seam (i.e., a seam may be continuous over its entire length
[100-percent continuity], but be so weak that it may be broken by light pressures
or thermal gradients). It is therefore necessary to also evaluate seam strength and
seam continuity. Currently, there are no known nondestructive methods of testing
for seam strength. As a consequence, both destructive and nondestructive testing
methods are required. An air pressure test in a wedge-welded seam is shown on
figure 20.5.10.1-1, and a vacuum test of a geomembrane repair is shown on
figure 20.5.10.1-2. For an air pressure test, a needle is inserted into the channel
created by the dual-hot-wedge welder while the other end is plugged. Air
pressure is applied, and the seam is required to hold pressure without dropping for
a specific time duration. This type of test is preferred by Reclamation. Air
pressure and time duration vary between geomembrane type and thickness
(ASTM D5820). Once the defect in the seam is located, it should capped with a
geomembrane strip that extends a minimum of 1 foot beyond in all directions
beyond the defect. In some cases, the entire seam being tested may need to be
capped if the defect cannot be found. The cap should be either extrusion welded
or chemically welded, depending on the material, to ensure that minimal leakage
will occur at the defect.
To the greatest extent possible, seams should be 100-percent nondestructively

tested for continuity. The nondestructive tests that are currently in use are
described in table 20.5.10.1-1.
The degree of destructive testing should be limited because the geomembrane

liner is damaged in the process of taking the test samples. The frequency of
sampling should be stated in the specifications, but the actual sampling locations
should be selected only after seaming is completed. The selection of sample
locations should be made by the inspector based on his/her experience and
judgment. However, a suggested frequency for destructive testing is one per
500 lineal feet of seam or minimum of one sample per day, whichever is greater.
While selecting destructive samples at the end of panels may avoid creating holes
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-77

in an otherwise good installation, it is recommended that samples be obtained at

specific intervals along seams to ensure quality [51, 52], as operators may
preferentially seam with greater care at areas where destructive samples are
known to be taken. A typical patch is shown on figure 20.5.10.1-3 in which the
destructive sample was obtained along the seam.
Figure 20.5.10.1-1. Air pressure testing of a dual-wedge-welded seam.
Figure 20.5.10.1-2. Vacuum testing of an extrusion welded patch.
20-78 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Table 20.5.10.1-1. Nondestructive tests used to evaluate seam continuity

Test Description Applicability Comments
Vacuum box A soapy solution is applied to the Mostly for stiff  Most commonly used test with stiff geomembranes,
geomembrane. A box with a transparent geomembranes such as HDPE, whose thickness exceeds 30 mil.
window is sealed against the geomembrane,  Cannot be used in corners or around small radii without
and a vacuum is established in the box. Soap special apparatus.
bubbles will form if there is a leak.  Relatively slow process since testing area is limited by
size of vacuum box.
Air pressure A double seam with an intermediate open Can be used on all  Used only with double seams with intermediate open
(ASTM D5820) channel is made. Pressurized air geomembranes channel (i.e., seams made with hot wedge or hot air).
is blown into the channel. Leakage is detected that have a thermal  More severe loading than vacuum test, but tests only a
if the specified air pressure cannot be kept fusion double seam small fraction of seam strength.
constant for the required amount of time.  Causes minor damage to geomembrane because
Pressure and time requirements vary between “leading hole” must be cut.
polymer type and thickness.  Quite efficient method since long sections of seam (up
to 100 meters) may be tested at one time.
 When defects are found, a vacuum box is often used to
locate the defect.
 Underseam may fail, in which case seam may require
capping.
Ultrasonic Several types of ultrasonic techniques are used Geomembranes  Reliable test when conducted by very experienced
(ASTM D7006-03) to assess the continuity of a seam: (1) the that are chemically operator over small areas.
measured thickness of the seam can be fused  Difficult to interpret readout over long periods of time
compared to the thickness it should have and/or due to operator fatigue.
(2) voids in the seam can be detected directly.
Spark testing A conducting wire is placed in the seam during All geomembranes,  Difficult to set up accurately over large areas.
seaming. A spark can be established between but requires a wire  Applicable in areas where vacuum cannot be used
the wire and an electric device if the wire is inserted into the (corners, etc.).
exposed (i.e., if a portion of the seam is seams  Results not always reliable.
missing).
Air lance A pipe with a nozzle is used to blow pressurized Mostly for pliable  Qualitative test only.
air at the edge of the seam. If there is a lack of geomembranes  Results not very reproducible.
continuity in the seam, air flows under the
geomembrane and inflates it or causes it to
vibrate, often audibly.
Probe A stiff probe, such as a blunt screwdriver, is All geomembranes  Qualitative test only.
used to verify mechanically if the seam is and seams with  Results not very reproducible.
continuous. well-defined edges
Source: Based on Giroud and Fluet [46].
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-79

Figure 20.5.10.1-3. Destructive sample patch (Warren H. Brock Reservoir) seamed

by extrusion methods (note initials and date of vacuum test on patch).
Destructive laboratory testing should include shear tests as well as peel tests.
Results of these tests should be available as soon as possible (typically 48 hours
after sampling) to permit prompt action in case of failure of a test. Geomembrane
cover material should not be placed before the test results are known. The
destructive test samples should be: (1) tested in the field using a tensiometer,
(2) tested by the quality assurance laboratory, and (3) tested by the installers’
laboratory if possible. A portion of the sample should also be retained at the site.
20.5.10.2 Leakage Detection Techniques

The techniques available for leak detection fall into two main categories:
(1) drainage layer techniques based on observations of the leak detection and
drainage system between the upper and lower liners of a double-liner system and
(2) technologies involving the use of remote sensing techniques.
The concept of using the drainage layer between the upper and lower liners of a
double-liner system for leak detection is that, by monitoring the liquids that
accumulate in the drainage layer sump, the presence of leaks can be detected.
This method of leak detection has several attractive features. In addition, to
providing leak detection, the method provides information on the volume of
leakage collected. Thus, the drainage layer monitors the performance of the
upper liner. This is a direct method of leak detection that does not require
sophisticated data interpretation. This leak detection technique is discussed in
detail by the EPA [6].
20-80 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Remote sensing techniques are those that can determine the existence of a leak
and its location so it can be repaired even when covered with a protective soil.
The currently available methods are electrical resistivity, time-domain
reflectometry, and acoustical emission monitoring. Other less developed
technologies include lysimeters, seismic measurements, electromagnetic
techniques, and seismic blocks; these different types of remote sensing techniques
are discussed in detail by the EPA [6]. These techniques are highly recommended
for critical projects. Electrical resistivity remote sensing techniques were used at
Warren H. Brock Reservoir and identified numerous geomembrane defects due to
soil cover placement damage as evidenced by figures 20.5.10.2-1 and 20.5.10.2-2.
Figure 20.5.10.2-1. Small damage to geomembrane identified under a protective

soil cover at Warren H. Brock Reservoir with electrical resistivity sensing.
Electrical resistivity surveys can be very expensive; however, if project

economics allow, it is highly recommended to improve the confidence of the
geomembrane integrity. A typical probe and equipment layout used at Warren H.
Brock Reservoir is shown in figure 20.5.10.2-3.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-81

Figure 20.5.10.2-2. Large damage to geomembrane identified under a protective

soil cover at Warren H. Brock Reservoir with electrical resistivity sensing.
(a) (b)
Figure 20.5.10.2-3. (a) Typical electrical resistivity probe and (b) equipment layout.
20.5.11 Corrective Measures

If a monitored geomembrane-lined dam is known to have some flaws (e.g., leaks),
several measures can be implemented depending on the size of leaks, type of
facility, and type of lining system. If possible, the reservoir should be drained and
repairs made as soon as possible. However, care should be taken to ensure that
rapid drawdown of the reservoir does not cause stability problems. It is also
20-82 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

essential that care be taken so as not to damage the geomembrane liner.

Crews working on repairs should be supervised by someone familiar with the
geomembrane to ensure that additional punctures or tears are prevented or
patched if they do occur.
Underwater techniques for repairing leaking dams without emptying the reservoir
can be used. For more information regarding this repair technique, the reader is
referred to published literature by McDonald et al. [47] and Christensen et al.
[48].
20.5.12 Final Acceptance

Typically, the contractor shall retain all ownership and responsibility for the
geomembrane until final acceptance. The geomembrane shall be accepted by
Reclamation when all of the following conditions are met:
1. Installation is finished.
2. Verification of the adequacy of all seams and repairs, including associated

testing, and all quality control documentation is complete.
3. Certification, including quality control documentation, is provided by the

installer to Reclamation.
4. The entire protective cover placement is completed.
20.5.13 Protective Cover Observation

The procedure for placing materials on top of an installed geomembrane depends
on the type of geomembrane, the type of cover material, and the geomembrane
application. Placement of two types of cover materials are discussed here:
(1) cement based and (2) granular materials.
20.5.13.1 Placement of Cement-based Covers

Several types of cement-based cover materials are used and include prefabricated
pavers or slabs, cast-in-place concrete, or compacted soil cement.
20.5.13.1.1 Placement of Prefabricated Pavers or Slabs

Prefabricated pavers or slabs are relatively small elements. They are too light to
withstand wave action individually. They work only because they are
interlocked. Therefore, it is essential that placement be such that interlocking is
ensured.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-83

There should be a needle-punched nonwoven geotextile between the

geomembrane and the prefabricated concrete pavers or slabs to protect the
geomembrane during and after placement.
20.5.13.1.2 Concrete and Soil Cement Cover

A needle-punched nonwoven geotextile should be placed on a geomembrane prior
to placing cement-based materials to protect the geomembrane and to enhance
cover stability during construction.
20.5.13.2 Placement of Granular Materials

Granular materials placed on geomembranes should be limited to a maximum
particle size of 0.5 inch order to prevent damage or puncturing of the
geomembrane. Consideration can be given to the placement of a geotextile
protective layer placed between the geomembrane and the granular material, but
slope stability must be assured. During construction of the cover, particular care
should be taken to prevent damage to the geomembrane. The cover material
should never be pushed down the slope because the gravitational stresses may
cause the geomembrane to come out of the anchor trench or cause the liner to tear.
Also, attention should be given to verify the thickness of the cover materials being
placed.
Equipment placing the cover material should not be driven directly on top of the
geomembrane. Care should be taken to prevent operator error from damaging the
geomembrane (or underlying geosynthetics). Damage to the underlying
geomembrane can still occur from construction equipment (tracked or rubber tire)
when turning too sharply or rapidly applying the brakes for sudden stops on the
cover material. In addition, blades or buckets of heavy construction equipment
can also cause damage if they are allowed to work too close to the geomembrane.
Bulldozers, as shown on figure 20.5.13.2-1, should be specified as low-ground
pressure-type configuration. A minimum of 18 to 24 inches of cover should be
placed prior to allowing equipment to travel over the geomembrane. When large
trucks or scrapers are used to deliver cover soils, specific haul routes should be
planned with temporarily increased soil cover (i.e., 3 to 6 feet depending on
equipment size) to protect the underlying geomembrane.
As placement of a soil cover progresses, care should be taken to prevent wrinkles

from developing at the leading edge of the soil as shown in figure 20.5.13.2-2.
20-84 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

Figure 20.5.13.2-1. Placement of protective cover over a geomembrane.
Figure 20.5.13.2-2. Development of wrinkles at the leading edge of the protective

material placement.
The geomembrane should be in intimate contact with the underlying subgrade

and, if not, the wrinkles could fold over and be stressed at the apex, which could
produce stress cracks over time, leading to excessive leakage. Avoiding wrinkles,
field techniques, and quantification of anticipated wrinkles can be reviewed in
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-85

published literature [38, 49, 50]. Solutions for preventing and correcting
wrinkles, as adapted from Koerner and Koerner [53], are summarized in
table 20.5.13.2-1.
Table 20.5.13.2-1. Suggested remedial and preventative measures for wrinkles

Method Advantages Disadvantages
Push/accumulate/cut/seam Quick and cheap Extrusion welds, chances
for leaks
Fixing berms or piles Helps keep panel taunt Slow and expensive
White panels Quick and easy Small waves still present
Temporary tent Helps moderately High cost, low productivity
Night or early morning Panels are cool Limits productivity and
backfill raises safety concerns
20-86 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

20.6 References
[1] ICOLD, Bulletin 135 – Geomembrane Sealing Systems for Dams: Design
Principles and Review of Experience, International Commission on
Large Dams, France, 2010.
[2] ICOLD, Bulletin 78 – Watertight Geomembranes for Dams, International

Commission on Large Dam, France, 1991.
[3] Scheirs, John, A Guide to Polymeric Geomembranes, John Wiley and Sons,
Great Britain, 2009.
[4] Koerner, R.M., Designing with Geosynthetics, Sixth Edition, Vols. I and II,
Xlibris Corporation, United States, 2012.
[5] Stark, T.D., H. Choi, and P.W. Diebel, “Influence of Plasticizer Molecular
Weight on Plasticizer Retention in PVC Geomembranes,” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 99–110, 2005.
[6] Richardson, G.N. and R.M. Koerner, Geosynthetic Design Guidance for
Hazardous Waste Landfill Cells and Surface Impoundments, EPA
Contract No. 68-03-3338, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Cincinnati, Ohio, 1988.
[7] Holtz, R.D., B.R. Christopher, and R.R. Berg, Geosynthetic Engineering,
BiTech Publishers, Canada, 1997.
[8] Jones, C.J.F.P., Earth Reinforcement and Soil Structures, Thomas Telford
Publishing, London, 1996.
[9] Shukla, S.K. and S. Shukla, Geosynthetics and their Applications, Thomas
Telford Publishing, London, 2002.
[10] Bureau of Reclamation, Design Standards No. 13, Embankment Dams,

Chapter 8 – Seepage, October 2011.
[11] Scuero, A.M. and G.L. Vaschetti, “Geosynthetics as Barriers to Water

Infiltration in Rehabilitation and Construction of Dams – The State of
the Art,” Proceedings Geohorizon – State of the Art in Geosynthetics
Technology, AA Balkema, Rotterdam, 1998.

Chapter 16 – Cutoff Walls, June 1991.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-87

[13] Koerner, R.M., Y.G. Hsuan, and G.R. Koerner, Geomembrane Lifetime
Prediction: Unexposed and Exposed Conditions, GRI White Paper #6,
Geosynthetic Research Institute, February 2011.
[14] Koerner, R.M. and Y.G. Hsuan, “Lifetime Predictions of Polymeric

Geomembranes Used in New Dam Construction and Dam
Rehabilitation,” Proceedings Association of State Dam Safety Officials,
Lake Harmony, Pennsylvania, 2003.
[15] Saxena, S.K. and Y.T. Wong, “Friction Characteristics of a Geomembrane,”

Proceedings of the International Conference of Geosynthetics, IFAI,
St. Paul, Minnesota, 1984.
[16] Martin, J.P., R.M. Koerner, and J.E. Whitty, “Experimental Friction
Evaluation of Slippage Between Geomembrane, Geotextiles, and Soils,”
Proceedings of the International Conference of Geosynthetics, Denver,
Colorado, IFAI, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1984.
[17] Akber, S.Z., Y. Hammamji, and J. Lafleuer, “Frictional Characteristics of

Geomembranes, Geotextiles, and Geomembrane-Geotextile
Composites,” Proceedings of the Second Canadian Symposium on
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Edmonton, Alberta, 1985.
[18] Williams, N.D. and M.F. Houlihan, “Evaluation of Interface Friction

Properties Between Geosynthetics and Soils,” Proceedings
Geosynthetics 1987 Conference, Vol. II, IFAI, St. Paul, Minnesota,
1987.
[19] Degoutte, G. and G. Mathieu, “Experimental Research of Friction Between

Soil and Geomembranes or Geotextiles using a 30x30 cm Box,” Third
International Conference on Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria, 1986.
[20] Koerner, R.M., J.P. Martin, and G.R. Koerner, “Shear Strength Parameters
Between Geomembranes and Cohesive Soil,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 4, No. 1, pp. 21–31, 1986.
[21] Eigenbrod, K.D. and J.G. Locker, “Determination of Friction Values for the
Design of Side Slopes Lined or Protected with Geosynthetics,”
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, Vol. 24, No. 4, pp. 509–519, 1987.
[22] Koerner, R.M. and D. Narejo, Direct Shear Database of

Geosynthetic-to-Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-to-Soil Interfaces,
GRI White Paper #30, Geosynthetic Research Institute, June 2005.
[23] Giroud, J.P., Design Standards No. 13, Embankment Dams,

Chapter 20 – Geomembranes, for the Bureau of Reclamation, 1992.
20-88 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

[24] Sembenelli, P., “Geosynthetics for Dams,” Proceedings Post Vienna

Conference on Geotextiles, Singapore, 1987.
[25] Giroud, J.P. and R. Bonaparte, “Leakage through Liners Constructed with
Geomembranes, Part I: Geomembrane Liners,” Geotextiles and
Geomembranes, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27–67, 1989.
[26] Giroud, J.P., “Equations for Calculating the Rate of Liquid Migration
through Composite Liner Systems,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4,
Nos. 3–4, pp. 335–348, 1997.
[27] Giroud, J.P and N. Touze-Foltz, “Geomembranes for Landfills,”

Geosynthetics International, Vol. 10, No. 4, pp. 124–133, 2003.
[28] Bonaparte, R., J.P. Giroud, and B.A. Gross, “Rates of Leakage through
Landfill Liners,” Proceedings of Geosynthetics ‘89, Vol. 1, IFAI,
San Diego, California, February 1989.
[29] Touze-Foltz, N. and J.P. Giroud, “Empirical Equations for Calculating the
Rate of Liquid Flow through Composite Liners due to Geomembrane
Defects,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 10, No. 6, pp. 215–233,
2003.
[30] Weber, C.T and J.G, Zornberg, “Leakage through Geosynthetic Dam Lining
Systems,” Dam Safety 2007 Conference, ASDSO, Austin, Texas, 2007.
[31] Giroud, J.P., B.A. Gross, and R. Bonaparte, “Leachate Flow in Leakage
Collection Layers Due to Defects in Geomembrane Liners,”
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, Nos. 3-4, pp. 215-292, 1997.
[32] Giroud, J.P., M.V. Khire, and K.L. Soderman, “Liquid Migration through
Defects in a Geomembrane Overlain and Underlain by Permeable
Media,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4, Nos. 3–4, pp. 293–321,
1997.
[33] Giroud, J.P., T.D. King, T.R. Sanglerat, T. Hadj-Hamou, and M.V. Khire,
“Rate of Liquid Migration through Defects in a Geomembrane Placed on
a Semi-Permeable Medium,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 4,
Nos. 3–4, pp. 349–372, 1997.
[34] Giroud, J.P., T. Pelte, and R.J. Bathurst, “Uplift of Geomembranes by

Wind,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 6, pp. 897–952, 1995.
[35] Giroud, J.P., M.H. Gleason, and J.G. Zornberg, “Design of Geomembrane
Anchorage Against Wind Action,” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 6,
No. 6, pp. 481–507, 1999.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-89

[36] Giroud, J.P., R.B. Wallace, and C.J. Castro, “Improved Methodology
for Geomembrane Wind Uplift Design,” Proceedings of the 8th
International Conference on Geosynthetics, Vol. 1, Yokohama, Japan,
September 2006.
[37] Grossman, S. and F. Sanger, “Experience with Thermoplastic

Waterproofing Systems in Dam Construction in the German Democratic
Republic,” Proceedings of the 16th Congress on Large Dams, Vol. II,
Q.61, R.15, San Francisco, California, 1988.
[38] Chappell, M.J., R.K. Rowe, R.W.I. Brachman, and W.A. Take, “A
Comparison of Geomembrane Wrinkles for Nine Field Cases,”
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 19, No. 6, pp. 453–469, 2012.
[39] Stone, J., “Leakage Monitoring of the Geomembrane Liner for the Proton
Decay Experiment,” Proceedings of the International Conference on
Geomembranes, Vol. 2, Denver, Colorado, 1984.
[40] Giroud, J.P. and P., Hout, “Conception des Barrages, en Terre et en
Enrochements, Munis d’etancheite par Feuille Mince,” Proceedings of
the 11th Conference Europeenne de la Comission Internationale de
L’Irrigation et du Drainage, CIID, Theme 3, Rome, 1977 (in French).

Chapter 9 – Static Deformation Analysis, November 2011.
[42] Giroud, J.P., “Designing with Geotextiles,” Materiaux et Constructions,

Vol. 14, No. 82, July–August 1981.
[43] Terzaghi, K., Theoretical Soil Mechanics, John Wiley and Sons, New York,
1943.
[44] Giroud, J.P., R. Bonaparte, J.F. Beech, and N.A. Gross, “Design of Soil
Layer-Geosynthetic Systems Overlying Voids,” Geosynthetics
International, Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 11–50, 1990.
[45] Giroud, J.P. and C. Ah-Line, “Design of Earth and Concrete Covers for
Geomembranes,” Proceedings of the Conference on Geomembranes,
Vol. II, Denver, Colorado, 1984.
[46] Giroud, J.P. and J.E Fluet, “Quality Assurance of Geosynthetic Lining
Systems,” Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 3, No. 4, pp. 249–287,
1986.
20-90 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

[47] McDonald, J.E., A.M. Scuero, and M.A. Marcy, “Geomembrane Systems
for Underwater Repair of Dams,” Proceedings Waterpower ‘97, ASCE,
pp. 174–183, 1997.
[48] Christensen, J.C., M.A. Marcy, A.M. Scuero, G.L. and Vaschetti, A
Conceptual Design for Underwater Installation of Geomembrane
Systems on Concrete Hydraulic Structures, Technical Report REMR
CS-50, for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, September 1995.
[49] Chappel, M.J., R.W.I. Brachman, W.A. Take, and R.K. Rowe, “Large Scale
Quantification of Wrinkles in a Smooth Black HDPE Geomembrane,”
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering, Vol. 138,
No. 6, pp. 671–679, 2012.
[50] Yamamoto, L.O., “Design and Construction of a Hazardous Waste

Landfill,” Proceedings of Geosynthetics ‘87, Vol. II, New Orleans,
Louisiana, February 1987.
[51] Geosynthetic Institute, “Selecting Variable Intervals for taking

Geomembrane Destructive Seam Samples Using the Method of
Attributes,” GRI GM14, Folsom, Pennsylvania, January 2013.
[52] Geosynthetic Institute, “Selecting Variable Intervals for taking

Geomembrane Destructive Seam Samples Using Control Charts,”
GRI GM20, Folsom, Pennsylvania, May 2013.
[53] Geosynthetic Institute, “The Intimate Contact Issue of Field Placed

Geomembrane with Respect to Wave (or Wrinkle) Management,”
GRI White Paper No. 27, Folsom, Pennsylvania, June 2013.
20.6.1 Supplemental Resources

Technical Service Center
Bureau of Reclamation, Lining for Irrigation Canals, 2nd Printing,

U.S. Department of the Interior, 1976.
Bureau of Reclamation, Design Summary for Mt. Elbert Forebay Reservoir

Membrane Lining, Frying pan-Arkansas Project, Colorado, 1981.
Bureau of Reclamation, Underwater Lining of Operating Canals, R-94-15,

U.S. Department of the Interior, October 1994.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-91

Comer, A.I., Use of Geomembranes in Bureau of Reclamation Canals,

Reservoirs, and Dam Rehabilitation, REC-95-01, U.S. Department of the
Interior, August 1995.
Comer, A.I. and Hsuan, S., Freeze-Thaw Cycling and Cold Temperature Effects
on Geomembrane Sheets and Seams, R-96-03, U.S. Department of the
Interior, March 1996.
Comer, A.I., Y.G. Hsuan, and L. Konrath, “Performance of Flexible

Polypropylene Geomembranes in Covered and Exposed Environments,”
Bureau of Reclamation, Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on
Geosynthetics, Atlanta, Georgia, 1998.
Dewey, R.L., “The Bureau of Reclamation Uses Geosynthetics,” Water Operation

and Maintenance, Bulletin No. 152, U.S. Department of the Interior,
June 1990.
Hickey, M.E., Synthetic Rubber Canal Lining, Laboratory and Field Investigation
of Synthetic Rubber Sheeting for Canal Lining, REC-ERC-71-22,
U.S. Department of the Interior, April 1971.
Morrison, B., “Flexible Membrane Linings,” Water Operation and Maintenance,

Bulletin No. 129, U.S. Department of the Interior, September 1984.
Morrison, W.B., E.W. Gray, D.B. Paul, and R.K. Frobel, Installation of Flexible
Membrane Lining in Mt. Elbert Forebay Reservoir, REC-ERC-82-2,
U.S. Department of the Interior, September 1981.
Morrison, W. B. and J.G. Starbuck, Performance of Plastic Canal Linings.

U.S. Department of the Interior, January 1984.
Swihart, J., A. Comer, and J. Haynes, Deschutes – Canal-lining Demonstration

Project, Durability Report – Year 2, R-94-14, U.S. Department of the Interior,
September 1994.
Timblin, L.O., P.G. Grey, B.C. Muller, and W.R. Morrison, Emergency Spillways
Using Geomembranes, REC-ERC-88-1, U.S. Department of the Interior,
April 1988.
Young, R.A., Direct Shear Tests Used in Soil-Geomembrane Interface Friction

Studies, R-94-09, U.S. Department of the Interior, August 1994.
20-92 DS-13(20)-16 March 2014

General Texts
Holtz, R.D., B.R. Christopher, and R.R. Berg, Geosynthetic Engineering, BiTech
Publishers, Canada, 1997.
ICOLD, Bulletin 135 – Geomembrane Sealing Systems for Dams: Design

Principles and Review of Experience, International Commission on Large
Dams, France, 2010.
Koerner, R.M., Designing with Geosynthetics, Sixth Edition, Vols. I and II,
Xlibris Corporation, United States, 2012.
Scheirs, John, A Guide to Polymeric Geomembranes, John Wiley and Sons, Great
Britain, 2009.
Shukla, S.K. and S. Shukla, Geosynthetics and their Applications, Thomas

Telford Publishing, London, 2002.
DS-13(20)-16 March 2014 20-93

Geomembrane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geomembrane

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geomembrane

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Design Standards No.

Chapter 20: Geomembranes

U.S. Department of the Interior

The mission of the Bureau of Reclamation is to manage, develop,

Design Standards No. 13

DS-13(20)-16: Phase 4 (Final)

Chapter 20: Geomembranes

Application of Design Standards

In addition to these design standards, designers shall integrate sound engineering

Design Standards No. 13

DS-13(20)-16:1 Phase 4 (Final)

Chapter 20 – Geomembranes is an existing chapter within Design Standards

 State-of-the-practice design and construction considerations

 Bureau of Reclamation geomembrane installation case histories

 Removal of extraneous polymeric manufacturing discussion and dated

Derek VVittwer, RE. Date

Justirl Hall, P.E. Date

Michael Gobla, RE. Date

Recommended for Technical Approval:

61) 3h1f 2-O/

20.1.1 Purpose............................................................................. 20-1

20.1.2 Scope ................................................................................ 20-2

20.1.3 Deviations from Standard ................................................ 20-2

20.1.4 Revisions of Standard ...................................................... 20-2

20.1.5 Applicability .................................................................... 20-2

20.2 Geomembrane Materials .................................................................. 20-2

20.2.1 Common Geomembrane Types ....................................... 20-3

20.2.1.1 Covered Geomembranes .............................. 20-3

20.2.1.2 Exposed Geomembranes .............................. 20-3

20.2.2 Manufacturing Processes ................................................. 20-4

20.2.2.1 Extrusion ...................................................... 20-5

20.2.2.2 Calendaring .................................................. 20-5

20.2.2.3 Spread Coating ............................................. 20-6

20.2.3 Comparison of Geomembranes........................................ 20-6

20.2.3.1 High-density Polyethylene .......................... 20-6

20.2.3.2 Linear Low-density Polyethylene ................ 20-6

20.2.3.3 Polyvinyl Chloride ....................................... 20-7

20.2.3.4 Chlorosulphonated Polyethylene ................. 20-7

20.2.3.5 Ethylene Propylene Diene Terpolymer ........ 20-7

20.2.3.6 fPP ........................................................ 20-8

20.3 Geomembrane Applications for Embankment Dams ...................... 20-8

20.3.1 Embankment Facing ........................................................ 20-9

20.3.1.1 McDonald Dam .......................................... 20-10

20.3.2 Embankment Core ......................................................... 20-12

20.3.2.1 Pactola Dam ............................................... 20-14

20.3.3 Reservoir Lining and Upstream Blankets ...................... 20-17

20.3.3.1 Horsetooth Reservoir ................................. 20-18

20.3.3.2 Warren H. Brock Reservoir ....................... 20-19

20.3.3.3 Mount Elbert Forebay Reservoir ............... 20-21

20.3.3.4 Black Lake Dam ........................................ 20-22

20.3.3.5 Pablo Dam .................................................. 20-23

20.3.4 Cutoff Walls ................................................................... 20-25

20.3.4.1 Reach 11 Dikes .......................................... 20-27

20.4 Design Considerations ................................................................... 20-28

20.4.1 Laboratory Testing ......................................................... 20-29

20.4.1.1 Physical Properties ..................................... 20-29

20.4.1.2 Mechanical Properties ................................ 20-30

20.4.1.3 Endurance Properties ................................. 20-30

20.4.2 Interface Strength ........................................................... 20-31