Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. David A. Kidd, P.E. <br />29 September 1993 <br />Page 4 <br />geomembrane specimen by light hand tamping to the reported dry unit <br />weight for each normal stress condition. Golder did not specify any <br />target dry unit weight and moisture content conditions for the overliner <br />material. The reported values of dry unit weight for each soil specimen <br />were determined by measuring the as- placed volume of soil and dividing <br />this volume into the calculated total dry weight of the moist soil <br />specimen. <br />For each test in the test series, the overliner material and the <br />upper surface of the geomembrane specimen were wetted, prior to shearing, <br />by pouring tap water on top of the overliner material and allowing the <br />water to drain at the overliner material - geomembrane interface. It was <br />observed that the water flowed through tie overliner material and the <br />outflow of the water ceased approximately five minutes after the water <br />was poured. It is noted that the geomembrane specimen used in each test <br />was larger than the lower shear box preventinc the flew of water into the <br />compacted iron clad tailings in the lower shear box. <br />Other features of the testing procedure - included the following: <br />• each specimen was sheared at a constant displacement rate <br />immediately after application of the normal stress used for <br />shearing; <br />• the direction of shear for each test was in the direction of <br />manufacture (machine direction) o-' the geomembrane sample; <br />GEOSYNTEC CONSULTANTS <br />• all of the tests were performed using a constant effective sample <br />area (i.e., the plan area of the geomembrane was larger than that <br />of the upper shear box), therefore, no area correction was <br />required when computing normal and shear stresses; and <br />• all of the tests were sheared until a constant, residual shear <br />load was recorded. <br />GL3458/GEL93234 <br />Atnam.wKC,sw[ flf, <br />