All outputs update automatically when inputs change.
Conditions-first · HDPE / LLDPE
Wind uplift, leak equalisation and ballast
This tool first decides whether ballast is indicated. Ballast response options only appear when the assessment triggers a ballast requirement.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
Exposure and membrane behaviour
Air entry assumptions for leak-informed case
Ballast response settings
GeoKonect wind uplift, leak equalisation and ballast report
–
Before relying on this result
This result is a concept-stage wind uplift and ballast screen. Confirm wind basis, exposed condition, defect assumptions, restraint details and construction staging before adoption.
Conservative connected-air-pathway case
Leak-informed nominated-defect case
Ballast response sizing
–
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Method notes
Conservative case: use this where connected air pathways below the liner are credible, including edges, penetrations, vents, wrinkles, poor seals, open subgrade voids or construction-stage exposure.
Leak-informed case: use this only where air pathways are genuinely controlled and the nominated defect frequency and diameter are defensible. The case triggers ballast when the calculated time to reach the strain threshold is less than or equal to 2,880 minutes.
Ballast options: if ballast is triggered, the tool reports both the equivalent full cover load and intermittent line-load option. These are alternate response concepts and must be reviewed for constructability, puncture risk, local bearing, durability and CQA access.
Leakage checks
Select one leakage mechanism. The tool then shows only the relevant inputs and output for that mechanism.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
Darcy flow through intact barrier
Free-flow orifice defect
Composite liner defect
GeoKonect leakage report
–
Before relying on this result
This result is a simplified leakage screen. Confirm the selected leakage mechanism, hydraulic head, contact condition, liner type, CQA assumptions and regulatory context before adoption.
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Which leakage option should be used?
Darcy: use for an intact clay or GCL-style barrier where flow is governed by hydraulic conductivity and thickness. Do not use it to imply a geomembrane has no leakage if defects are credible.
Free-flow orifice: use when a hole can discharge freely into a drainage layer or porous medium. This is generally more severe than a well-contacted composite liner.
Composite liner defect: use when a geomembrane defect sits over a GCL or compacted clay liner. Better contact reduces leakage; wrinkles or poor contact increase leakage.
Geocomposite drainage
Screen the required flow capacity of a geonet or drainage geocomposite below a liner against the reduced allowable capacity.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
How this check should be used
This module estimates the flow capacity required to transmit leakage within a drainage layer, then compares it with the selected product capacity after partial reduction factors. It is mainly relevant to leak detection layers, drainage layers below a primary geomembrane, and other liner systems where flow must remain below a limiting head.
A functioning drainage layer limits the hydraulic head on the secondary barrier. If the assigned allowable leak rate is too low or not realistic for long-term conditions, the drainage layer may run full and the leakage data can become misleading.
Design responsibility
This is a screening tool only. Final adoption requires project-specific transmissivity testing, normal stress selection, hydraulic gradient verification, reduction factor selection and review by a suitably qualified professional.
Required drainage demand
Product capacity and reduction factors
GeoKonect drainage report
–
Before relying on this result
Confirm that the selected capacity and reduction factors reflect project normal stress, hydraulic gradient, boundary conditions, geotextile intrusion, creep and clogging risks. This output is not a certified design.
- If the check fails, increase geocomposite capacity, reduce drainage length, steepen the gradient where possible, reduce allowable leakage, or reassess reduction factors with better testing.
- Do not use a data-sheet flow value without checking test gradient and normal stress.
- Where leak detection is regulatory-critical, document the leakage basis and long-term clogging assumptions.
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Anchor trench and pull-out checks
Compare two preliminary anchorage approaches: wind-derived down-slope demand and trench/runout pull-out resistance.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
What the two methods do
Method 1 — wind anchorage screen: estimates the down-slope restraint demand generated by wind action on an exposed geomembrane and converts that demand into an indicative backfilled trench area.
Method 2 — trench/runout pull-out screen: checks whether a selected trench and runout length has enough pull-out resistance to resist a liner tension demand. It uses active/passive soil pressure, trench weight and interface friction. It does not generate the wind demand by itself.
Use Method 1 to estimate the load. Use Method 2 to check whether a nominated trench/runout configuration can resist that load.
Design responsibility
These are preliminary screening methods. Final design should confirm trench geometry, passive resistance mobilisation, liner damage risk, soil strength, construction tolerance, drainage, saturation, interface shear testing and the design wind basis.
Method 1 — wind-derived anchor demand
Method 2 — trench/runout pull-out screen
GeoKonect anchor trench report
–
Before relying on this result
Check trench geometry, passive resistance mobilisation, trench saturation, cover confinement, liner bend/detailing, construction tolerances, pull-out behaviour and whether temporary ballast or staged deployment would be more appropriate.
Method 1 — wind anchorage screen
Calculates wind-induced down-slope demand from gust speed, slope length and interface angle, then converts the demand to an indicative trench area using backfill unit weight.
Method 2 — trench/runout pull-out screen
Checks whether the selected trench and runout can resist the applied liner tension using passive/active soil resistance, trench weight and interface friction. It is a resistance check, not a wind-generation model.
Method 1 result
Method 2 result
- If Method 1 gives a large trench area, check whether the original unit basis is correct. Demand should be in kN/m and backfill unit weight in kN/m³.
- For wind restraint, reducing exposed length or adding intermittent line ballast can be more practical than increasing trench size.
- For pull-out resistance, the available runout, interface friction and passive soil resistance must be project-specific. Do not rely on generic values for final design.
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Soil veneer stability
Screen cover-soil stability above a geomembrane, GCL or other low-friction interface.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
When this check matters
Soil veneer stability checks should be carried out for any liner system covered temporarily or permanently with soil. This includes landfill caps, covered GCLs, water storages, tailings facilities and embankments where a low-friction interface may control stability.
The current screen reports gravity and optional seismic cases. Seepage inputs are included so rapid drawdown and cover-soil drainage can be documented for review.
Design responsibility
Final veneer design requires project-specific interface shear testing, pore pressure assessment, construction sequencing and review by a suitably qualified professional. Construction loading and dozer operation can govern short-term stability.
Risk classification
Cover and interface properties
Seepage and seismic flags
GeoKonect soil veneer report
–
Before relying on this result
Confirm interface shear strength, cover placement method, temporary construction loads, pore pressures, drainage, seismic requirements and consequences of veneer movement. This output is not a certified slope design.
- If unstable, consider reducing slope angle, increasing cover thickness, reducing slope length or improving cover-soil/interface friction.
- Veneer stability can be improved through berm buttressing, tapered cover from crest to base or veneer reinforcement.
- Dozer tracking uphill has limited effect compared with tracking and accelerating downhill. Downhill acceleration and sudden deceleration on slopes should be avoided.
- Additional liner profile layers can unintentionally change veneer stability. Do not assume all added layers are neutral.
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Wrinkle stress (HDPE)
Screen the bending stress and strain induced by locked-in geomembrane wrinkles, and estimate likely wrinkle height from temperature.
Project details for report
These details are included in the printed calculation record.
When this check matters
Exposed HDPE geomembranes expand in the sun and form waves or wrinkles. When the liner is then covered with soil or filled with water, those wrinkles are locked in. The sharp curvature at the crest of a wrinkle bends the sheet and induces a local bending stress (and outer-fibre strain) that can drive slow crack growth (stress cracking) over the service life.
This screen offers three complementary checks: a curvature / bending-stress method (compared against an SCR- and factor-of-safety-adjusted allowable stress), a strain-based method after Scheirs (compared against the 30% of yield NCTL stress-cracking limit), and a simple estimate of likely wrinkle height from a temperature rise where field measurements are not yet available. Each is reported for the unloaded (installation) and water-loaded (in-service) cases.
Design responsibility
Wrinkle geometry should be confirmed by survey or CQA observation, not assumed. Material properties (modulus, yield strength, stress-crack resistance and NCTL behaviour) must come from the manufacturer’s datasheet or project testing for the actual resin and texture. These are screening estimates only and do not replace project-specific durability assessment or review by a suitably qualified engineer.
Method 1 — Curvature & bending stress
Method 2 — Scheirs strain / NCTL
Method 3 — Wrinkle height from temperature
GeoKonect wrinkle stress report
–
Before relying on this result
Confirm the measured wrinkle geometry, the actual resin modulus, yield and SCR/NCTL behaviour, the load case, and the consequences of crack initiation. The curvature and strain methods are simplified single-wrinkle idealisations and do not capture multi-axial effects, welds, scratches or long-term modulus relaxation. This output is not a certified durability assessment.
Method-by-method outcome
1 · Curvature & bending stress
No load: –
With load: –
2 · Scheirs strain / NCTL
No load: –
With load: –
3 · Wrinkle height from ΔT
–
- Where a wrinkle is too steep (amplitude > wavelength) or stresses are high, place cover or fill in cool conditions so wrinkles contract before being locked in.
- Lower modulus, thinner sheet, smaller amplitude and longer wavelength all reduce the induced bending stress and strain.
- The 30% of yield NCTL threshold is a stress-cracking screening limit — keep the induced stress well below it for long-term exposed or covered service.
- Overburden reduces the effective wrinkle amplitude in this model; the unloaded installation case is usually the more onerous bending check.
Input summary
Output summary
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
⚠ Important — limitations & liability (please read before use)
- These are conceptual planning and estimation tools. They use simplified, published design methods and rely entirely on the inputs and assumptions you enter — results are indicative only.
- They are not a detailed-design, construction or certification tool and do not constitute engineering or professional advice. Do not use them as the sole basis for design, construction, procurement, regulatory or site decisions.
- GeoKonect does not have, and has not verified, project- or site-specific information (geometry, materials, geotechnical, hydraulic, wind, environmental or regulatory conditions). Actual behaviour may differ materially from these estimates.
- Results must be independently verified against the governing standards, manufacturer data and the project specification, and validated by site-specific analysis and testing.
- You are responsible for checking all inputs and outputs, and for engaging a suitably qualified engineer to review and certify any design relied upon.
- To the maximum extent permitted by law, GeoKonect accepts no liability for any loss, damage, cost or claim arising from use of or reliance on these tools or their outputs. Use is entirely at your own risk.
- Conceptual / indicative output only, from simplified published methods and the user-entered inputs shown above.
- Not a detailed-design, construction or certification tool, and not engineering or professional advice; not the sole basis for design, construction, procurement, regulatory or site decisions.
- GeoKonect does not have, and has not verified, project- or site-specific conditions. Actual behaviour may differ materially.
- Verify independently against the governing standards, manufacturer data and the project specification, and validate by site-specific analysis and testing.
- The user is responsible for all inputs and outputs and must engage a suitably qualified engineer to review and certify any design relied upon.
- To the maximum extent permitted by law, GeoKonect accepts no liability for any loss, damage, cost or claim arising from use of or reliance on this output. Use is at the user's own risk.
Cushion / protection screening
This tool is now integrated into the GeoKonect suite. It provides a qualitative candidate gsm recommendation and a separate testing/proof trigger. Use the tool's own Print / Save PDF button to generate the report.
Inputs
Update any field. The recommendation recalculates automatically.
Project details
Geomembrane
Contact material
Load and construction
Project constraints
Screening recommendation
Candidate class only. Not proof of puncture performance.
–
Candidate classes
Mechanical drivers
Testing and verification
Inputs summary
| Input group | Value | Comment |
|---|
Reasoning and design notes
Method basis
controlling stress = greater of calculated operating stress and construction contact stress
screening severity = particle severity + load severity + liner vulnerability + construction/consequence modifiers − bedding mitigation
The algorithm is intentionally conservative and is calibrated as a practical screening method, not as a substitute for project-specific large-scale cushion testing. Where the recommendation is high, severe or proof is required, use ASTM D5514/D5514M with project materials. Use applicable geotextile conformance and index tests such as mass, thickness under load, CBR puncture, tensile/tear and permittivity where relevant.
Kontain supplies geogrids, geotextiles, geomembranes, GCLs, drainage composites, asphalt reinforcement and geobag systems. Product options can be matched to the site conditions, performance requirements, construction risks and budget. Request a project-specific supply proposal.
Important — limitations & liability
- Conceptual / indicative output only, based on simplified internal screening logic and the user-entered inputs shown in this report.
- Not a detailed-design, construction, procurement, certification or regulatory approval tool. Not engineering or professional advice.
- The tool does not verify project-specific aggregate shape, particle hardness, liner formulation, geomembrane strain response, geotextile compressibility, construction damage, interface shear behaviour, clogging, UV damage or chemical durability.
- Cushion testing is recommended where the client, regulator or Engineer of Record needs proof of performance. High-risk and severe conditions should not rely on this screen alone.
- The user is responsible for all inputs, assumptions and use of outputs, and must obtain review by a suitably qualified engineer before relying on any recommendation.
- To the maximum extent permitted by law, GeoKonect, Kontain Pty Ltd and associated contributors accept no liability for any loss, damage, cost, claim, defect, failure or consequential loss arising from use of or reliance on this output. Use is entirely at your own risk.