IOP Conference Series:

Materials Science and

Engineering

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- ESTIMATING THE SIZE OF LATE
Application of Eurocode 7 for the analysis and VENEER IMPACTORS FROM IMPACT-
INDUCED MIXING ON MERCURY
design of veneer cover soils in static and seismic E. G. Rivera-Valentin and A. C. Barr

- Some properties of laminated veneer

load conditions lumber manufactured from oil palm trunk
I M Sulastiningsih, D R Trisatya and J
Balfas
To cite this article: P Rimoldi et al 2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 1260 012047
- Effect of carbon nanotubes on the
biotribological behavior of hot-pressed
PEEK-based composites for biomedical
applications
T Pigosso, V Richhariya, C Binder et al.
View the article online for updates and enhancements.

This content was downloaded from IP address [Link] on 05/06/2025 at 18:25

7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Application of Eurocode 7 for the analysis and design of

veneer cover soils in static and seismic load conditions

P Rimoldi1, P Pezzano2, A Gebely2

1
Consultant, Milano, Italy
2
Officine Maccaferri S.p.A, Bologna, Italy
Email: [Link]@[Link]
Abstract. Veneer is intended as a relatively thin cover soil layer placed on a slope. Veneer
cover soil systems in containment facilities such as landfills, liquid disposal and reservoirs
involve geosynthetic-soil interfaces. The main design criterion for protective veneer covers is
to ensure that no sliding occurs above the geosynthetic or the existing soil slope. The design of
the protective veneer covers should include the stability of the lining system under the effect of
the gravity forces, equipment loadings, seismic actions and pore water pressures. The limit
equilibrium method used in the present paper for the evaluation of veneer stability has been
derived from the method of Koerner and Soong (1988) and adapted to the limit state design
offered by Eurocode 7 with reference to the Resistance Factor Approach (RFA). Serviceability
limit state considerations are included in the design method for completeness.

1. Introduction
Veneer is intended as a relatively thin cover soil layer placed on a slope.
The stability analysis for sliding of a veneer above a geosynthetic or a natural soil layer, including
sliding above liners, like geomembranes (GBR), geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) and compacted clay
liners (CCL), is the object of the present paper.
There are two specific applications in which cover soil stability needs to be checked:
l) Leachate collection soil placed above a GBR, GCL and/or CCL along the sides of a landfill or a
heap leach pad before waste or ore is placed and stability achieved accordingly.
2) Final cover soil placed above a GBR, GCL and/or CCL in the cap or closure of a landfill or a heap
leach pad.
Veneer stability above a liner represents a major challenge due to the following reasons [1]:
(a) The underlying barrier materials generally represent a low interface shear strength boundary with
respect to the soil placed above them.
(b) The liner system is oriented precisely in the direction of potential sliding.
(c) The potential shear planes are usually linear and are essentially uninterrupted along the slope.
(d) Liquid (water or leachate) cannot continue to percolate downward through the cross section due to
the presence of the barrier material.
Since both situations (leachate collection and final covers) present the same technical issues, the
method presented in the present paper is applicable to both. Anyway, the paper is particularly
addressed to the final cover situation, which presents much higher challenges.

1.1. Interface Shear Testing

The interface shear strength of a cover soil with respect to the underlying material (geomembrane or
natural soil) is critical so as to properly analyze the stability of the cover soil. This value of interface

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

shear strength is obtained by laboratory testing of the project specific materials, that is by sampling of
the candidate geosynthetics to be used at the site, as well as of the cover soil at its targeted density and
moisture conditions, at the site specific conditions, that is under project specific normal stresses, strain
rates, peak or residual shear strengths and temperature extremes (high and/or low). Hence values of
interface shear strengths from the literature should be used only for preliminary design.
The test that has been developed to evaluate geosynthetics shear strength parameters are ASTM
D5321 [2] in the USA, while internationally reference has to be made to ISO 12957-1 [3], and to ISO
12957-2 [4]. Usually in the direct shear test relatively high compressive loads are applied, in the range
50 – 200 kPa. But a veneer soil layer on a capping applies a very small load: a 1 m thick veneer
applies a uniform pressure of maximum 20 kPa. Therefore, the inclined plane test appears to be the
most suitable for obtaining the friction characteristics at the interface between the veneer soil and the
layer below it [5], at least for capping design.
With either direct shear or inclined plane tests, two fundamental shear strength parameters are
obtained:
δ = the angle of shearing resistance, peak and/or residual, of the two opposing surfaces (usually called
the interface friction angle)
Ca = the adhesion of the two opposing surfaces, peak and/or residual.
The upper limit of δ, when soil is involved as one of the interfaces, is the friction angle of the soil
component, φ. The upper limit of the Ca value is the cohesion of the soil component, c. In the
following slope stability analyses, the Ca term will be included for the sake of completeness, but to
utilize an adhesion value there must be a clear physical justification for the use of such values when
geosynthetics are involved, like textured geomembranes with physical interlocking of soils having
cohesion.

1.2. Types of Loadings

There are a large variety of slope stability problems that may be encountered in analyzing and/or
designing final covers of landfills or heap leach pads as well as leachate collection soils covering
geomembranes beneath the waste or ore. The most common situation is a uniformly thick cover soil
on a geomembrane placed over the soil subgrade at a given and constant slope angle. Analyses will
include loads produced by equipment moving up the slope and then moving down the slope during
placement of cover soil on the geomembrane.
Since cover soil slides have occurred due to seepage forces, often drainage above a geomembrane
(or other barrier material) in the cover soil cross section must be accommodated to avoid the
possibility of seepage forces. This situation requires specific analyses of slope stability problems.
If an earthquake occurs in the vicinity of a landfill or heap leach pad, the seismic wave travels
through the solid waste or ore mass reaching the upper surface of the cover. It then decouples from the
cover soil materials, producing horizontal and vertical forces which must be appropriately analyzed.
All of the above actions are destabilizing forces tending to cause veneer instability. To increase the
stability of the veneer soil, the designer can use geogrids or high strength geotextiles within the cover
soil acting as reinforcement materials. This technique, usually referred to as veneer reinforcement, will
be specifically analyzed.

2. Analytical approach to veneer stability

The analytical approach used in the present paper for the evaluation of veneer stability has been
derived by the method of Koerner and Soong [1], adapted to limit state design approach according to
EuroCodes. The present method for veneer stability analyses includes evaluations of toe wedge forces,
seismic forces, and tensile forces of geosynthetic reinforcements,
The model assumes that the veneer soil cover can be divided in the active wedge of trapezoidal
shape, limited by a tension crack at the crest, whose sliding down the slope is contrasted by the
passive triangular wedge at toe and by the geosynthetic reinforcement anchored at top of the slope, as
shown in the scheme of Figure 1.

2
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Final cover systems for a landfill or a heap leach pad can be characterized as a veneer soil layer of
thickness h on a surface sloped at angle β to the horizontal, as shown in Figure 1.
The critical slip surface is considered to occur on the liner below the veneer cover. The tangential
weight of the soil mass, WAˑsin β, is the driving force that might cause the soil veneer to slip.
The resisting forces against slippage are:
(a) the shear strength between the soil mass and the slip surface
(b) the toe buttressing force at the toe of the slope
(c) the tensile force, TD, provided by the geosynthetics.
The goal of veneer stability design is to provide all of the slope resistance with shear forces and not
to put the geosynthetic barriers in tension. Only the tensile strength contribution provided by a high
tensile resistant geosynthetic, such as a geogrid or woven / knitted geotextile, is considered for the
support of the cover system, while any tensile strength contribution from other geosynthetics
(geomembranes, nonwoven geotextile filters, etc.) shall be ignored.
The shear strength along the critical interface is often a function of the effective normal force
acting on this interface. As well known, the relationship between shear strength and normal force is
called the shear strength envelope, and it is usually expressed in terms of the Mohr-Coulomb
parameters of friction angle φ and cohesion c. Since the actual shear strength envelope is often not
linear, it is important that the Mohr-Coulomb parameters are defined within a specific normal load
range, as it is always unconservative to extrapolate the envelope, either to lower normal loads or to
higher ones. The shear strength on the interface can be reduced by pore pressures, u, because pore
pressures reduce the effective normal force acting on the interface. Thus, flowing water pressures
would produce a destabilizing force.
In Ultimate Limit State (ULS) conditions, according to EuroCodes, loads are amplified by
Amplification Factors, while resistances are reduced by Reduction Factors.

Figure 1. Scheme of veneer stability analysis with only gravitational static loads applied, including
the use of veneer reinforcement (modified from [1])

The analysis of forces in the free body diagrams of the active and passive wedges (Figure 1) allows
to calculate the active and passive interwedge forces, Ea and Ep. The stability check is satisfied if:

3
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

FS = (Ep / Ea) ≥ γR (1)

where FS is the Factor of Safety and γR is the partial factor R3 required by the EuroCode norms for
sliding analysis (see later).
In practice the EC7 approach can be easily implemented by performing the “traditional” analyses,
like sliding along the slope, pull-out, etc., but using as input values the factorized values of loads and
geotechnical parameters. Analyses are satisfied when the minimum Factor of Safety, now called R3,
or γR, is achieved.

3. Design approach according to Eurocodes

3.1. Eurocodes framework

In Eurocode 7 [6] (usually abbreviated as EC7), design by calculation involves the definition of:
- actions, which may be either imposed loads or imposed displacements, e.g. from ground movements;
- properties of soils, rocks and other materials;
- geometrical data;
- limiting values of deformations, crack widths, vibrations etc.;
- calculation models.
According to EC7, the Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analyses of any geotechnical structure
(including veneer soil layers) shall address both failure of the ground and of the structure.
In EC7, currently there are three optional design approaches in combination with the Material
Factoring Approach (MFA), the Load Factoring Approach (LFA) and the Resistance Factoring
Approach (RFA). They differ in the way in which partial factors are taken into account.
For the ULS analysis of reinforced soil veneers, the Resistance Factoring Approach (RFA) appears
to be the best option, and it will be used thereinafter.
In RFA: loads are amplified through the set of factors M1; geotechnical parameters are not
reduced, according to the set of factors M1; resistances are reduced through the factors γ R according to
the factor R3.
The condition of Eq. (1) says that, according to EC7, the ratio between the design resistance (R d)
and the design effect of the actions (Ed) shall be larger than the coefficient γR (that is, the Factor R1,
R2, or R3 of the specific approach that has been chosen); hence the coefficient γR can be considered
equivalent to the Factor of Safety FS of traditional methods.
In this paper, for the Factors A1, M1, and R3 reference has been made to the Italian Technical
Norm for Construction issued in 2018 [7], which implement both Eurocode 7 [6] and Eurocode 8 [8].
Anyway, all National Annexes are applicable, it is enough to use the specific national factors.

3.2. Actions
In EC7:
• An action is given the general symbol, F.
• Actions can be permanent (persistent), permanent non-structural, or variable (transient), accidental,
or seismic.
• Persistent actions are denoted by FG. Transient actions are denoted by FQ.
• Actions can be either “favourable” or “unfavourable”.
• Load Coefficients (A) shall be applied to actions in each Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analysis.
• Partial coefficients (A) are denoted by γG1, γG2, γQi, for permanent, permanent non-structural, and
variable loads, respectively.
The combinations of factors to be applied to the actions (A1) in the ultimate limit state analyses,
according to Italian Norm [7], are reported in Table 1.

3.3. Ground properties

In EC7:

4
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

• Geotechnical parameters should be established with consideration given to published data and local
and general experience
• Material properties are given the general symbol, X.
• Characteristic values of material properties are given the general symbol, Xk.
• The selection of characteristic values for geotechnical parameters shall be based on results and
derived values from laboratory and field tests.
• Reduction coefficients (M) shall be applied to characteristic values of material properties in each
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) analysis.
• Partial coefficients (M) are denoted by γϕ’, γc’, γcu, γγ, for tangent of friction angle, drained cohesion,
undrained cohesion, and unit weight, respectively.
The combinations of factors to be applied to the soil parameters (M1) in the ultimate limit state
analyses, according to Italian Norm (NTC 2018), are reported in Table 2.

Table 1. Combinations of factors to be applied to the actions (A1) in the ultimate limit state analyses,
according to Italian Norm [7]
PARTIAL
TYPE OF LOAD EFFECT A1
COEFFICIENT
FAVOURABLE 1.0
PERMANENT YG1
UNFAVOURABLE 1.3
FAVOURABLE 0.8
PERMANENT NON-STRUCTURAL YG2
UNFAVOURABLE 1.5
FAVOURABLE 0.0
VARIABLE YQi
UNFAVOURABLE 1.5

Table 2. Combinations of factors to be applied to the soil parameters (M1) in the ultimate
limit state analyses, according to Italian Norm [7]
PARAMETER APPLIED TO PARTIAL COEFFICIENT M1
Tangent of friction angle tan φ’k γφ’ 1.00
Drained cohesion c’k γc’ 1.00
Undrained cohesion cuk γcu 1.00
Unit weight γ γγ 1.00

3.4. Stability Verification

According to EC7, the ratio between the design resistance (Rd) and the design effect of the actions (Ed)
shall be larger than the coefficient γR (that is, the Factor R3 in case of RFA), according to Eq. (1).
The γR coefficient for sliding, to be used for ultimate limit states verification purposes (R3)
according to Italian Norm [7], is reported in Table 3.
Therefore, according to EC7, for veneer cover stability the following analyses shall be carried out:
- Direct sliding, tensile strength of reinforcement, pull out of reinforcement and/or other geosynthetics
(for anchorage in top trenches)
- Verification shall be carried out according to RFA Approach with Combination (A1+M1+R3)
- For direct sliding, verification is satisfied if: FS = Rd / Ed= (Ep / Ea) ≥ R3

Table 3. Partial coefficients γR (R3) for verification of the ultimate limit states, applicable to veneer
soil, according to Italian Norm [7]
ANALYSIS PARTIAL COEFFICIENT R3
Sliding γR = 1.1

5
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

4. Sliding stability analyses for veneer covers

4.1. Basic case of only gravitational forces in static conditions

Figure 1 illustrates the common situation of a finite length, uniformly thick cover soil placed over a
liner material at a slope angle β. It includes a passive wedge at the toe and has a tension crack at the
crest. The analysis that follows is derived from [1] and [9], but comparable analyses are available from
[10], [11], [12], and others.
Note that all analyses refer to 1.0 m running slope length, hence all forces are expressed in kN/m.
The symbols used in Figure 1 are defined below:
WA = total weight of the active wedge (kN/m)
Wp = total weight of the passive wedge (kN/m)
NA = effective force normal to the failure plane of the active wedge (kN/m)
Np =effective force normal to the failure plane of the passive wedge (kN/m)
γ = unit weight of the cover soil (kN/m3)
h = thickness of the cover soil (m)
H = vertical height of the slope measured from the toe of the active wedge (m)
L = length of slope measured along the soil slope (m)
β = angle of the slope (°)
φ = friction angle of the cover soil (°)
δ = friction angle between cover soil and liner (deg)
Ca = adhesive force between cover soil of the active wedge and the liner (kN/m)
ca = adhesion between cover soil of the active wedge and the liner (kPa)
C = cohesive force along the failure plane of the passive wedge (kN/m)
c = cohesion of the cover soil (kPa)
TD = design value of reinforcement strength (kN/m)
EA = interwedge force acting on the active wedge from the passive wedge (kN/m)
EP = interwedge force acting on the passive wedge from the active wedge (kN/m)
FS = factor of safety against cover soil sliding along the slope
Note that, to avoid long writing, the above geotechnical parameters represent the characteristic
values of soil and interface properties already reduced with the partial coefficients of the set M1 (see
Table 2), that is:

tan φ = tan φsoil / γϕ’, c = csoil / γc’, tan δ = tan δinterface / γϕ’, ca = cinterface / γc’, γ = γsoil / γγ (2)

The expression for determining the factor of safety can be derived as follows.
From Figure 1, without the geosynthetic reinforcement, considering the active wedge:

1  2H 
WA =   h   − h tan   (3)
2  sin  
N A = WA  cos  (4)

H
CA = cA  L = cA  (5)
sin 
From Figure 1, considering the passive wedge:
1  1 
WP =   h 2   
 sin   cos  
2 (6)

N P = WP + EP  sin  (7)

6
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

h
C = c (8)
sin 

From the equilibrium of vertical forces on the active wedge (Σ Fv = 0)active wedge:

EA =
1
sin 

  G1u WA  (1 − cos 2  − cos   sin   tan  ) −  G1 f  C A  sin   (9)

where:
γG1u = Amplification Factor for permanent unfavourable loads (see Tab. 1)
γG1f = Amplification Factor for permanent favourable loads (see Tab. 1).
From the equilibrium of horizontal forces on the passive wedge (Σ Fh = 0)passive wedge:

 G1 f  C +  G1 f WP  tan 
EP = (10)
cos  − sin   tan 

Stability is then verified if, for the combinations (A1 + M1 + R3), where from Tab. 3 for sliding
analyses it is R3 = 1.10, the Factor of Safety results:
EP
FS =  1.10 (11)
EA
If the above condition is not verified, it means that the veneer cover is unstable for sliding down the
slope: in this case a geosynthetic reinforcement shall be introduced and the stability analysis including
reinforcement shall be performed until the condition is verified.

4.2. Veneer Reinforcement

The best way of increasing the Factor of Safety for a slope is to reinforce it with a geosynthetic. Such
reinforcement can be either intentional or non-intentional [1].
By intentional reinforcement it is meant to include a geogrid or high strength geotextile within the
cover soil to purposely reinforce the system against instability. Depending on the type and amount of
reinforcement, the majority, or even all, of the driving, or mobilizing, stresses can be supported,
resulting in major increase in FS value.
By non-intentional reinforcement reference is made to multicomponent liner systems where a low
shear strength interface is located beneath an overlying geosynthetics. In this case, the overlying
geosynthetics are inadvertently acting as veneer reinforcement to the composite system. The
difference is that the geogrids and/or high strength geotextiles give a major increase in the FS value,
while a protection geotextile (or other low strength geosynthetics) only nominally increases the FS
value at the cost of high strains in the geosynthetics. Therefore, it is evident that non-intentional
reinforcement shall be avoided.
Hence we will refer only to intentional reinforcement, that is a geogrid or high strength geotextile
placed below the veneer cover and above the multicomponent liner system; while the tensile strength
of any component of the lining system (filter geotextiles, draining geocomposites, geomembranes,
etc.) will be considered equal to zero.
The scheme of the stability analysis of the veneer cover subject only to gravitational forces in static
conditions, with a reinforcing geosynthetic below the veneer cover, is shown in Figure 1.
All forces have the same expressions as in the previous analysis, but a force T D from the
reinforcement, acting parallel to the slope, provides additional stability. This force acts only within the
active wedge.
The design tensile force TD is obviously less than the ultimate strength of the geosynthetic
reinforcement. Considering the ultimate strength Tult, the value should be reduced by such factors as

7
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

installation damage, creep and long-term degradation. Note that if seams are involved in the
reinforcement, a reduction factor should be added accordingly. Koerner [13], among others, provides
recommended numeric values.
Hence the expression of TD is:

Tult
TD = (12)
RFID  RFcr  RFch  RFb
where:
TD = design value of reinforcement strength (kN/m)
Tult = ultimate value of reinforcement strength (kN/m)
RFID = reduction factor for installation damage
RFcr = reduction factor for creep
RFch = reduction factor for long term chemical degradation
RFb = reduction factor for long term biological degradation
Note that for analyses at short term (e.g. at the end of construction) the Reduction Factors for creep
and for chemical and biological damage shall be set as: RFcr = RFch = RFb = 1.0; while, for seismic
analyses, only the Reduction Factor for creep shall be set as: RFcr = 1.0.
With reference to Figure 1, the interwedge force EA is obtained from the equilibrium of vertical
forces on the active wedge (Σ Fv = 0)active wedge:

EA =
1
sin 

  G1u WA  (1 − cos 2  − cos   sin   tan  ) −  G1 f  C A  sin  −  G1 f  TD  sin   (13)

The interwedge force EP has the same expression as in Eq. (10).

Stability is verified if, for combination (A1 + M1 + R3), the Factor of Safety results as per Eq. (11).
For this analysis and for all the following ones, the tensile strength TD (and therefore the ultimate
tensile strength Tult) shall be varied by trials and errors until the condition of Eq. (11) gets verified.
For high values of TD the interwedge force EA may become negative, and as a consequence also FS
becomes negative: this is just a sign that TD has been overdesigned; then the designer may try with a
lower value of TD, or the designer may keep this high TD value, in favour of safety.

4.3. Tracked Construction Equipment Forces

The placement of cover soil on a slope with a relatively low shear strength inclusion (like a liner)
should always be from the toe upward to the crest. In so doing, the gravitational forces of the cover
soil and live load of the construction equipment are compacting the previously placed soil and
working with an ever-present passive wedge and stable lower portion beneath the active wedge. For
soil placement down the slope, however, a stability analysis cannot rely on toe buttressing and also a
dynamic stress should be included in the calculation. These conditions decrease the FS value and in
some cases to a great extent. Unless absolutely necessary, it is not recommended to place cover soil on
a slope in this manner. If it is necessary, the design must consider the unsupported soil mass and the
dynamic force of the specific type of construction equipment and its manner of operation.
For the second case of a bulldozer pushing cover soil down from the crest of the slope to the toe, or
in any case for the bulldozer moving down the slope, the analysis uses the scheme of Figure 2.
The analysis uses a specific piece of tracked construction equipment (like a bulldozer characterized
by its ground contact pressure) and dissipates this force or stress through the cover soil thickness to the
surface of the liner. A Boussinesq analysis is used to transfer the bulldozer weight at the veneer
surface as an equivalent vertical force on the liner interface [14].
Moreover, we have to consider an additional force due to acceleration (or deceleration) of the
equipment along the slope. This analysis again uses a specific piece of construction equipment
operated in a specific manner. The acceleration or deceleration produces a force parallel to the slope,

8
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

equivalent to the weight of the bulldozer multiplied by the acceleration of the bulldozer and divided by
the acceleration due to gravity. Its magnitude is equipment operator dependent and related to both the
equipment speed and time to reach such a speed.
It is clear that the case of the equipment moving down the slope is the critical one; it is also obvious
that, even if the soil is placed upward, when the equipment has reached the top of the slope it has to go
down moving on the soil just placed.
Therefore, only the case of the equipment moving down the slope will be considered for stability
analyses.
The equipment force per unit width (see Figure 2) can be calculated as follows:

We = q ˑ w ˑ I (14)
Wb
q= (15)
2 wb
where:
We = equivalent equipment force per unit width at the liner interface (kN/m)
Wb = weight of the equipment force (kN)
q = uniform pressure applied by equipment tracks on the veneer surface (kPa)
w = length of equipment tracks (m)
b = width of equipment tracks (m)
I = influence factor at the liner interface

Figure 2. Limit equilibrium forces involved in a finite length slope analysis for a uniformly thick
cover soil with equipment moving down the slope, including a geosynthetic reinforcement below the
veneer cover (modified from [1])

The influence factor I can be obtained from Figure 3 (modified from [14]).
The curve in Figure 3 can be approximated with the polynomial expression:

I = 0.0127 (b/h)5 – 0.1661 (b/h)4 + 0.8380 (b/h)3 - 2.0307 (b/h)2 + 2.3709 (b/h) - 0.1059 (16)

9
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Figure 3. Values of the influence factor, I, for use to dissipate surface force of tracked equipment
through the cover soil to the liner interface (modified from [14])

The acceleration of the bulldozer, coupled with the influence factor I from Figure 3 or Eq. 16,
results in the dynamic force per unit width at the cover soil to liner interface, Fb (Figure 3):
ab
Fb = Wb  (17)
g
where
Fb == dynamic force per unit width parallel to the slope at the liner interface (kN/m)
ab = acceleration of the bulldozer (m2/s)
g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m2/s
The acceleration of the bulldozer is equipment operator dependent and related to both the equipment
speed and the time to reach such a speed; hence the value of acceleration, a b, can be evaluated from
Figure 4 (from [1]).
When there is equipment moving down the slope, the critical situation occurs when the veneer
cover has been laid up to the top of the slope: then the scheme of the stability analysis, including a
geosynthetic reinforcement below the veneer cover, becomes as shown in Figure 2.
The force Ne, normal to the sliding plane and produced by the equipment on the liner interface, is:

Ne = We · sin β (18)

Considering that the equipment produces an unfavourable variable load, the expression of the
interwedge force EA can be obtained from the equilibrium of vertical forces on the active wedge
(Σ Fv = 0)active wedge:

  G1u  WA  (1 − cos 2  − cos   sin   tan  ) −  G1 f  C A  sin  
1   (19)
EA =   a  
sin  −  G1 f  TD  sin  +  Qiu  We  (1 + − cos   sin   tan   
where:   g  
γQi = amplification factor for variable unfavorable loads, from Table 1.
The expression of EP remains the same of Eq. (10).
Stability is verified if, for combination (A1+M1+R3), the Factor of Safety results as per Eq. (11).

10
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Also in this case, for high values of TD the interwedge force EA may become negative, and as a
consequence also FS becomes negative: this is just a sign that TD has been overdesigned; then the
designer may try with a lower value of TD, or the designer may keep this high TD value, in favour of
safety.
Note that the critical situation occurs at the end of construction of the veneer cover, hence analyses
are considered at short term; since the probability of an earthquake occurring just at the end of
construction is negligible, analyses with equipment loads are only carried out in static conditions,
without considering any seismic condition.

Figure 4. Graphic relationship of construction equipment speed and rise time to obtain equipment
acceleration (from [1])

Being a short term analysis, if reinforcement is used, the Reduction Factors for creep, chemical and
biological damage shall be set equal to 1.0, while only the Reduction Factor for installation damage
shall be applied.
The inherent danger of a bulldozer moving down the slope is readily apparent. Note that the same
result comes about by the bulldozer decelerating instead of accelerating. The sharp breaking action of
the bulldozer is arguable the more severe condition due to the extremely short times involved when
stopping forward motion. Hence acceleration should be estimated from Figure 4 with reference to the
condition of sudden breaking.
Since acceleration and breaking of the equipment is unavoidable, an analysis should be made of the
specific stability situation and the construction specifications should reflect the exact conditions made
in the design. The maximum allowable weight and ground contact pressure of the equipment should be
stated along with suggested operator movement of the cover soil placement operations.
From above analysis it is clear that the best construction solution is to avoid the forces produced by
equipment moving on the slope: hence, whenever possible, placement of veneer soil cover using long
reach boom excavators operating at the toe and the top of the slope should be preferred.
Truck traffic on the slopes can also give as high, or even higher, stresses than tracked bulldozers,
and should be avoided unless adequately designed. Additional details are given in [15].
The issue of access ramps is a unique subset of this analysis and one which deserves focused
attention due to the high loads and decelerations that often occur.

11
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

4.4. Seismic Forces

In areas of anticipated earthquake activity, the slope stability analysis of a final cover soil over a
landfill or a heap leach pad site must consider seismic forces.
According to EuroCodes, seismic forces shall always be considered wherever the seismic design
acceleration is more than zero. EuroCode 8 [8] specifies how to determine the seismic parameter for a
specific project.
The EuroCode 8 approach is now presented with reference to Italian Norm [7], being Italy one of
the most seismic Countries in Europe.
The motion generated by an earthquake at a site depends on the particular local conditions, that is,
it depends on the topographic characteristics and stratigraphic deposits of soil and rock mass and the
physical and mechanical properties of the materials that constitute them. The seismic motion at the
surface of a site, associated with each category of the subsoil, is defined by the maximum acceleration
(amax) at the surface. Once the acceleration ag expected at the bedrock has been defined, it is possible
to calculate the maximum seismic acceleration at the surface by the following formula:

amax = S ˑ ag = SS ˑ ST ˑ ag (20)
where:
ag = acceleration expected at the bedrock (m/s2)
amax = maximum acceleration at the surface (m/s2)
SS = stratigraphic amplification coefficient
ST = topographic amplification coefficient.
The acceleration at bedrock ag is provided by the National Agency in charge of seismic security, as
a function of the seismic history and records for the site, and of the reference period for the seismic
action. Seismic maps, charts, tables, and software are usually available for determining the value of ag
on a grid of few km.
The topographic amplification coefficient ST shall be evaluated based on the slope: for veneer
covers it should be set equal to 1.0 for slope angle β < 15°, and equal to 1.20 for slope angle β ≥ 15°.
The definition of SS depends on the category of the soil below the structure under consideration: it
varies from 1.00 for rocky outcrops or very rigid soils characterized by values of Vs,30 (average
velocity of shear waves in the first 30 m of subsoil) greater than 800 m/s, to 1.80 for deposits of low
density coarse soils or poorly consistent fine grained soils characterized by values of Vs,30 lower than
180 m/s.
In the case of landfill capping, between the bedrock and the top surface there is the waste, which
has similar geotechnical properties to low density coarse soils or poorly consistent fine-grained soils
characterized by values of Vs,30 lower than 180 m/s: therefore, when the height of waste below the
capping system is of the order of 20 – 30 m, it is safe to assume SS = 1.80.
Stability analyses in seismic conditions can be carried out using pseudo-static limit equilibrium
methods, where the seismic action is represented by an equivalent static force equal to the product of
gravity forces by proper seismic coefficients for the horizontal and vertical components, given by:
amax ag
Kh = m  =  m  S S  ST  (21)
g g

Kv = 0.5  Kh (22)
where:
Kh = horizontal coefficient for pseudo-static analyses
Kv = vertical coefficient for pseudo-static analyses
g = acceleration due to gravity = 9.81 m/s2
βm = dumping coefficient for reduction of the maximum acceleration at the site (see Table 4)
When the height of waste below the capping system is of the order of 20 – 30 m, it is safe to
assume the soil category E.

12
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Table 4. Values of the dumping coefficient βm according to Italian Norm [7]

Expected acceleration at bedrock βm for soil category A βm for soil category B, C, D, E
0.2 < ag / g ≤ 0.4 0.30 0.28
0.1 < ag / g ≤ 0.2 0.27 0.24
ag / g ≤ 0.1 0.20 0.20

In seismic conditions it is important to perform analyses not only for ULS but also for
Serviceability Limit States (SLS), that is to evaluate the maximum displacements and deformations of
the veneer soil.
The SLS analysis for maximum displacement in seismic condition could be performed using the
well-known Newmark method.
Anyway, Anderson and Kawazanjian [16] argue that results of Newmark deformation predictions
just indicate whether movements are large or small. Accuracies less than 15 to 30 mm are meaningless
in many cases, given the simplifying assumptions and uncertainties associated with the prediction. As
an example of these assumptions, the yield acceleration as well as the deformation prediction in a
Newmark analysis assume that the failure mass moves as a rigid block. Shearing stresses and
resistances at the base of the block are assumed to be uniformly distributed and the base is assumed to
be horizontal and smooth. Such assumptions may be numerically gratifying, but they have little
resemblance to conditions likely existing at a landfill base. Typical construction practice is to have
cross slopes to collect leachate above the liner, resulting in a series of small, relatively flat ridges and
valleys. Given the differences in soil confinement from the head to the toe of the landfill, it is also
unreasonable to expect soil resistance to develop uniformly during seismic loading. Furthermore, the
acceleration time history used in the deformation analysis is typically calculated assuming no relative
displacement and is then used to calculate a relative displacement. While the net effect of all of the
inaccuracies may well be conservative, caution is warranted in interpreting the results of Newmark
seismic deformation analyses, whether from design charts or computer analysis.
Therefore, based on the arguments by Anderson and Kawazanjian [16], it is not recommended to
use the Newmark method for the SLS analysis for maximum displacement of the veneer soil layer of a
landfill capping in seismic condition.
The EPA document [17] reports the results of Newmark seismic deformation analyses performed
by Hynes and Franklin [18] using 387 strong motion records and 6 artificial accelerograms, shown in
Figure 5. Based upon this data and their experience with seismic response analyses of slopes and
embankments, Hynes and Franklin [18] concluded that slopes and embankments with a yield
acceleration equal to half the peak ground acceleration would experience permanent seismic
deformations of less than one meter in any earthquake, even for embankments where amplification of
acceleration by a factor of three occurs. Hence EPA [17] states that, in the absence of amplification, or
if amplification is taken into account in determining the peak acceleration, the Hynes and Franklin
data (Figure 5) suggest that deformations will remain less than 0.3 m for yield accelerations less than
or equal to one-half the peak acceleration.
Therefore, based upon the work of Hynes and Franklin [18] and the EPA guidance [17], it appears
that the maximum value of the horizontal coefficient for pseudo-static analyses in seismic conditions,
Ks, may be determined as Ks = (0.5 amax/g) to limit permanent seismic deformations to less than 0.3 m,
where amax is the peak horizontal acceleration at the ground surface for analyses of the liner system and
at the top of the landfill for analyses of the capping system.
This means that assuming βm = 0.5 in Eq. (21) would allow to satisfy both the ULS and SLS
analysis of the veneer soil layer of a landfill capping in seismic condition.
It has to be noted that the vertical seismic acceleration shall be considered both as downward (+Kv)
and upward (-Kv), while the horizontal seismic acceleration shall always be considered as outward;
hence each soil veneer shall be analysed with both values, positive and negative, of the vertical
coefficient Kv; that is, two stability analyses are required for each value of Kh.

13
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Once the seismic coefficients Kh and Kv have been determined, the stability analyses of the veneer
cover in seismic conditions, with only gravitational forces applied, follow the scheme shown in Figure
6.
Note that for seismic analyses all load amplification factors A1 shall be set equal to A1-seismic =
1.00.

Figure 5. Permanent Seismic Displacement Chart (from [18])

Figure 6. Scheme for stability analyses of the veneer cover in seismic conditions, with only
gravitational forces applied, including a geosynthetic reinforcement below the veneer cover

It is assumed that in seismic conditions the geotechnical parameters φ, δ, c, ca have the same values
as in static conditions.
Therefore, with reference to Fig 6, the forces assume the same expressions as for the static case.

14
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Considering that in seismic conditions all Amplification Factors A1-seismic are equal to 1.0, the
expression of the interwedge force EAS in seismic conditions, from the equilibrium of vertical forces
on the active wedge (Σ Fv = 0)active wedge, becomes:

E AS =
1
sin 

 WA  (1  K v )  (1 − cos 2  − cos   sin   tan  ) − C A  sin  − TDS  sin   (23)

where:
TDS = design tensile strength of reinforcement in seismic conditions, with no Reduction factor for
creep applied (kN/m).
The expression of the interwedge force EPS in seismic conditions, from the equilibrium of
horizontal forces on the passive wedge (Σ Fh = 0)passive wedge, becomes:
C + WP  (1  K v )  tan  − K h WP
EP = (24)
cos  − sin   tan 
Stability is then verified if, for the seismic combination (A1-seismic+M1+R3), the Factor of Safety
results as per Eq. (11).

4.5. Seepage Forces

Slope stability analyses of veneers can be carried out in drained conditions if either permeable soil or a
drainage layer was placed above the barrier layer with adequate flow capacity to efficiently remove
permeating water safely away from the cross section. The amount of water to be removed is obviously
a site-specific situation. Anyway, adequate drainage of final covers may not be available.
If seepage forces occur, a variation in slope stability design methodology is required. Additional
discussion on this issue is given in [19,20,21,22].
Since seepage forces may impair the stability of the veneer cover, requiring a stronger
reinforcement to reach the prescribed Factor of Safety, it is recommended to design a geocomposite
drainage layer below the veneer cover. Design of such drainage layer can be accomplished with the
methods presented in ISO/TR 18228-4 [23].
If, for any reason, a drainage layer below the veneer cover is not available, the formation of a
phreatic surface due to water ponding at the toe or flow along the slope on the liner interface shall
always be considered.
For the analysis of the veneer cover in presence of seepage forces, let’s consider a cover soil of
uniform thickness placed directly above a liner at a slope angle β. Different from previous analyses is
that within the cover soil exists a saturated soil zone for part or all of the veneer thickness.
The saturated boundary can develop with two possibly different phreatic surface orientations:
- a horizontal buildup from the toe upward;
- a parallel-to-slope buildup outward.
When analyzing the stability of slopes using the limit equilibrium method, free body diagrams of
the passive and active wedges are taken with the appropriate forces (now including pore water
pressures) being applied.
4.5.1. The Case of the horizontal seepage buildup. Horizontal seepage buildup can occur when toe
blockage occurs due to inadequate outlet capacity, contamination or physical blocking of outlets, or
freezing conditions at the outlets.
In case of horizontal pressure buildup there are two possible situations:
a) phreatic surface above the passive wedge (that is, above the interwedge vertical line),
b) phreatic surface partially in the passive wedge (that is, intercepting the interwedge vertical line).

a) Phreatic surface above the passive wedge

When the phreatic surface is above the passive wedge (that is, above the interwedge vertical line), the
free body diagram of both the active and passive wedge is shown in Figure 7.

15
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Hence this situation occurs when Hw ≥ (h / cos β).

All symbols used in Figure 7 were previously defined except the following:
γsat = saturated unit weight of the cover soil (kN/m3)
γm = total (moist) unit weight of the cover soil (kN/m3)
γw = unit weight of water (kN/m3)
Hw = vertical height of the free water surface measured from the toe of the active wedge (m)
u = pore pressure at toe (kPa)
Uh = resultant of the pore pressures acting on the interwedge surfaces (kN/m)
Un = resultant of the pore pressures acting perpendicular to the slope (kN/m)
Uv = resultant of the vertical pore pressures acting on the base of the passive wedge (kN/m)
Above the phreatic surface the veneer soil will be dried only if the soil is free draining, but in
general it will be in moist condition; hence, on the safety side, for the active wedge above the phreatic
surface it is better to consider the total unit weight of soil in moist condition, γm.
When the water pressure acts on an inclined surface, the water pressure along the slope assumes the
distribution shown in Figure 7. The water pressure shall then be calculated as shown at bottom of
Figure 7.
Therefore, the maximum value of the water pressure, at the toe of the veneer cover, is:

u = γw ˑ h ˑ cos β (25)

With reference to Figure 7, the following forces assume different expressions than without the
horizontal seepage:
1  2  H w   1  1  2  (H − H w )  h  (26)
WA =   sat  h    − h   + tan   +  mh    + 
2  sin    tan   2  sin   tan  

Figure 7. Limit equilibrium forces involved in a finite length slope of uniform cover soil with
horizontal seepage buildup when the phreatic surface is above the passive wedge, including a
geosynthetic reinforcement, and scheme for calculation of water pressure on a slope

16
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

 H  h  1  (27)
U n =  w  h  cos    w  −   + tan  
 sin   2  tan  

1 1
U v =   w  h2  (28)
2 tan 
1
U h =   w  h  cos 
2
(29)
2
N A = WA  cos  + U h  sin  − U n (30)
1  1 
WP =  sat  h 2    (31)
2  sin   cos  
N P = WP + EP  sin  − Uv (32)

The expression of the interwedge force EA can be obtained from the equilibrium of vertical forces
on the active wedge (Σ Fv = 0)active wedge:

 G1u  WA  (1 − cos  − cos   sin   tan  ) −  G1 f  C A  sin  −  G1 f  TD  sin  

 2
1 
EA =  
sin    ( 2
)
+  G1u  U h  sin   cos  + sin  tan  + U n  (cos  + sin   tan  )  
 (33)

From the equilibrium of horizontal forces on the passive wedge (Σ Fh = 0)passive wedge:

 G1 f  C −  G1u U h + ( G1 f WP −  G1u U v )  tan 

EP = (34)
cos  − sin   tan 
Stability in static conditions is verified if, for the combination (A1+M1+R3), the Factor of Safety
results as per Eq. (11).
In seismic conditions with horizontal seepage the expressions of EA and EP become:

EA =
1

 2

 WA  (1  K v )  (1 − cos  − cos   sin   tan  ) − C A  sin  − TDS  sin  
 

 ( 
(35)
sin   2
)
+ U h  sin   cos  + sin  tan  + U n  (cos  + sin   tan  ) 


C − U h + WP  (1  K v )  tan  − U v  tan  − K h W P
EP = (36)
cos  − sin   tan 

Note that the seismic acceleration is not applied to pore water forces.
Stability in seismic conditions is verified if, for the combination (A1-seismic+M1+R3), the Factor
of Safety results as per Eq. (11).

b) Phreatic surface partially in the passive wedge

When the phreatic surface is partially in the passive wedge (that is, crossing the interwedge vertical
line), the free body diagram of both the active and passive wedge is shown in Figure 8.
Hence this situation occurs when Hw < (h / cos β).
In this case the maximum value of the water pressure, at the toe of the veneer cover, is:

u = γw ˑ Hw (37)

Referring to Figure 8, the following forces assume different expressions than in the previous case:

17
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Figure 8. Limit equilibrium forces involved in a finite length slope of uniform cover soil with
horizontal seepage buildup when the phreatic surface is partially in the passive wedge, including a
geosynthetic reinforcement below the veneer cover

1 H 2 1  2h  (H − H w )  2 H  2h 
WA =   sat  w +  m  − h  tan  + w   − H w  (38)
2 tan  2  sin   tan   cos  
2
1 H
Un =  w  w (39)
2 sin 
 h  1 1
U v =  w  H w   − H w   +   w  H w  tan 
2

 cos   tan  2
(40)

1
Uh =  w  H w
2
(41)
2
2
1  2h H  1  h  1
WP =  sat  H w   − w  +  d   − H w   (42)
2  sin  tan   2  cos   tan 

The expressions of EA and Ep in static and seismic conditions can be obtained from Eqs. (33) – (36)
by introducing the expressions of forces in Eqs. (38) – (42).
Stability in static and seismic conditions is then verified if, for the static combination (A1+M1+R3)
and for the seismic combination (A1-seismic+M1+R3), the Factor of Safety results as per Eq. (11).

4.5.2. The Case of Parallel-to-Slope Seepage Buildup. Figure 9 shows the free body diagrams of
both the active and passive wedges with seepage buildup in the direction parallel to the slope. Parallel
seepage buildup can occur when soils placed above a liner are initially too low in their hydraulic
conductivity or become too low due to long term clogging from overlying soils which do not have a
filter.

18
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

Also in this case, above the phreatic surface the veneer soil will be dried only if the soil is free
draining, but in general it will be in moist condition; hence, on the safety side, above the phreatic
surface it is better to consider the total unit weight of soil in moist condition, γm.
Identical symbols as defined in the previous cases are used here, with an additional definition:
hw = height of free water surface measured in the direction perpendicular to the slope (m).
In this case the maximum value of the water pressure, at the toe of the veneer cover, is:

u = γw ˑ hw ˑ cos β (43)

Referring to Fig. 9, the following forces assume different expressions than in the previous case:

 2H  1  2H 
− hw  tan   +  m(h − hw )  
1 (44)
WA =   sat  hw   − hw  tan  − h  tan  
2  sin   2  sin  
 w  hw  H (45)
Un =
tan 
1
U h =   w  hw
2 (46)
2
2
1 hw
Uv =  w  (47)
2 tan 
1
WP =  sat 
hw
2
1
+ d 
h 2 − hw ( 2
) (48)
2 sin   cos  2 sin   cos 

The expressions of EA and Ep in static and seismic conditions can be obtained from Eqs. (33) – (36)
by introducing the expressions of forces in Eqs. (44) – (48).
Stability in static and seismic conditions is then verified if, for the static combination (A1+M1+R3)
and for the seismic combination (A1-seismic+M1+R3), the Factor of Safety results as per Eq. (11).

Figure 9. Limit equilibrium forces involved in a finite length slope of uniform cover soil with parallel-
to-slope seepage buildup, including a geosynthetic reinforcement below the veneer cover

19
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

5. Required stability analyses

The stability of the veneer cover shall be analysed in the following Ultimate Limit State (ULS)
conditions:
1) At the end of veneer construction, with equipment moving down the slope, in static conditions,
without seismic actions nor seepage forces; being a short-term analysis, if reinforcement is used, the
Reduction Factors for creep, chemical and biological damage shall be set equal to 1.0.
2) At the end of the design life, both in static and in seismic conditions, with seepage forces if
horizontal seepage buildup or parallel to slope seepage buildup is anticipated; for the long term
analysis in static conditions, if reinforcement is used, all Reduction Factors for creep, installation
damage, chemical and biological damage shall be applied; for the long term analysis in seismic
conditions, the vertical seismic acceleration shall be considered both as downward (+Kv) and upward
(-Kv), while the horizontal seismic acceleration shall always be considered as outward; being a long
term analysis in seismic conditions, if reinforcement is used, the Reduction Factors for installation
damage, chemical and biological damage shall be applied, while the Reduction Factors for creep shall
be set equal to 1.0.
Note that assuming βm = 0.5 in Eq. (21) would allow to satisfy both the ULS and SLS analysis of
the veneer soil layer in seismic condition.
Note also that, if reinforcement is used, the tensile strength TD (and therefore the ultimate tensile
strength Tult) shall be finally set as the highest value from all analyses.
Finally, note that, for considering the tensile strength TD, the reinforcing geosynthetic shall be
properly anchored at the top of the slope; methods for designing the anchorage at top are not included
in the present paper but can be found in [13].

References
[1] Koerner R M. and Soong T Y 1998 Analysis and Design of Veneer Cover Soils. Proc. Sixth
International Conference on Geosynthetics, IFAI, Atlanta, Ga., USA pp 1–23
[2] ASTM D5321-2017 Standard Test Method for Determining the Shear Strength of Soil-
Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic-Geosynthetic Interfaces by Direct Shear. ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, USA
[3] EN ISO 12957-1 - Geosynthetics – Determination of the friction characteristics – Part 1: Direct
shear test. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland
[4] EN ISO 12957-2 - Geosynthetics – Determination of friction characteristics – Part 2: Inclined
plane test. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland
[5] Pavanello P, Carrubba P, Moraci N, Pezzano P, Miuzzi M 2016 Parameters and conditions
affecting friction angles in geosynthetic interfaces. Proc. EUROGEO 6, 6th European
Geosynthetics Congress. Ljubljana, Slovenia
[6] EN 1997-1 Eurocode 7: Geotechnical Design. CEN, Bruxelles, Belgium
[7] NTC 2018 Norme tecniche per le costruzioni (Italian Technical Norms for Construction). DM
17 Gennaio 2018. Gazzetta Ufficiale Nr 29 del 20 Febbraio 2018, Supplemento Ordinario
Nr 42 (in Italian)
[8] EN 1998-1 Eurocode 8: Design of structures for earthquake resistance – Part 1: General rules,
seismic actions and rules for buildings. CEN, Bruxelles, Belgium
[9] Koerner R M and Hwu B L 1991 Stability and Tension Considerations Regarding Cover Soils
on Geomembrane Lined Slopes. Geotextiles and Geomembranes10pp 335-55
[10] Giroud J P and Beech J F 1989 Stability of Soil Layers on Geosynthetic Lining SystemProc.
GeosyntheticsIFAI, St. Paul, MN, USA pp 35-46
[11] McKelvey J A and Deutsch W L 1991 The Effect of Equipment Loading and Tapered Cover
Soil Layers on Geosynthetic Lined Landfill Slopes Proceedings of the 14th Annual Madison
Avenue Conference, Madison, WI, USA, University of Wisconsin pp 395-411
[12] Ling H I and Leshchinsky D 1997 Seismic Stability and Permanent Displacement of Landfill
Cover Systems Jour. of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engrg. ASCE 123 No. 2

20
7th EuroGeo Conference IOP Publishing
IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering 1260 (2022) 012047 doi:10.1088/1757-899X/1260/1/012047

[13] Koerner R M 2012 Designing with Geosynthetics. 6th Ed., Xlibris LLC, Bloomington, IN, USA
[14] Poulos L G and Davis E H 1974 Elastic Solutions for Soil and Rock Mechanics. J. Wiley &
Sons, Inc., NewYork, NY, USA, 411 pgs.
[15] McKelvey J A 1994 Consideration of Equipment Loadings in Geosynthetic Lined Slope Design.
Proc. 8th Intl. Conf. of the Intl. Assoc. for Computer Methods and Advancements in
Geomechanics, Morgantown, WV:Balkema, pp 1371-7
[16] Anderson D G. and Kavazanjian E J 1995 Performance of Landfills Under Seismic Loading
International Conferences on Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and
Soil Dynamics. St. Louis, Missouri, USA
[17] EPA 1995 RCRA Subtitle D (258) Seismic design guidance for municipal solid waste landfill
facilities. EPA/600/R-95j051. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Washington, DC, USA
[18] Hynes M E and Franklin A G 1984 Rationalizing the Seismic Coefficient Method.
Miscellaneous Paper GL-84-/3, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi, USA
[19] Cancelli A and Rimoldi P 1989 Design Criteria for Geosynthetic Drainage Systems in Waste
Disposal Proc. Sardinia, 2nd Intl. Landfill Symposium, Porto Conte, Sassari, Italy
[20] Thiel R S and Stewart M G 1993 Geosynthetic Landfill Cover Design Methodology and
Construction Experience in the Pacific Northwest Proc. Geosynthetics IFAI, St. Paul, MN,
USA pp 1131-44
[21] Giroud J P, Bachus R C. and Bonaparte R 1995 Influence of Water Flow on the Stability of
Geosynthetic-Soil Layered Systems on Slopes Geosynthetic International 2pp 1149-80
[22] Soong T-Y and Koerner RM 1996 Seepage Induced Slope Instability Geotextiles and
Geomembranes 14 No. 7/8 pp 425-45
[23] ISO/TR 18228-4 Design using geosynthetics - Part 4: Drainage. ISO, Geneve, Switzerland

21