Technical Paper by J.E. Dove, J.D.

Frost, and
P.M. Dove

GEOMEMBRANE MICROTOPOGRAPHY BY
ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY
ABSTRACT: The use of surface roughness measurements for evaluating and predicting the performance of composite geosynthetic structures has become of interest to the
civil engineering profession, especially those involved in the design of landfills. This
paper introduces a recently developed method, tapping mode atomic force microscopy,
for measuring smooth high density polyethylene geomembrane microtopography. The
surface morphology and the degree of surface roughness are examined at a scale comparable to fine-grained soil particles used in composite landfill liners. The results show
that within a 10 mm2 scan area, asperity relief ranges from approximately 0.46 to 2.4
mm. Surface roughness is quantified using mean roughness, root mean square roughness, surface roughness parameter, and fractal dimension.
KEYWORDS: Interface strength, Atomic force microscopy, Tapping mode, Geomembranes, Surface roughness.
AUTHORS: J.E. Dove, Graduate Research Assistant, School of Civil and
Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332,
USA, Telephone: 1/404-894-7604, Telefax: 1/404-894-2281, J.D. Frost, Associate
Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of
Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA, Telephone: 1/404-894-2280, Telefax:
1/404-894-2281, and P.M. Dove, Assistant Professor, School of Earth and Atmospheric
Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA, Telephone:
1/404-894-6043, Telefax: 1/404-894-5638.
PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics
Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, Minnesota 55101, USA,
Telephone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics International is
registered under ISSN 1072-6349.
DATES: Original manuscript received 10 November 1995, revised version received
1 March 1996 and accepted 4 March 1996. Discussion open until 1 November 1996.
REFERENCE: Dove, J.E., Frost, J.D. and Dove, P.M., 1996, Geomembrane
Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 3,
No. 2, pp. 227-245.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

227

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

INTRODUCTION

The potential for using surface roughness measurements for evaluating and predicting the performance of composite geosynthetic structures has become of interest to the
civil engineering profession, especially those involved in the design of landfills. The
stability of landfills constructed using composite liner systems is usually governed by
the shear strength along a series of soil-geosynthetic interfaces. Williams and Houlihan
(1987) concluded that interface strength between soils and geosynthetics, and between
layers of geosynthetics is partly a function of surface roughness. Their conclusion has
been supported by findings from other researchers studying the interface strength of
sand in contact with steel or fiber reinforced plastic (Kishida and Uesugi 1987; Paikowsky et al. 1995; Han 1995) and between clay and geomembranes (Bemben and
Schulze 1995).
To conduct a meaningful examination of the fundamental mechanisms controlling interface shear it is first necessary to characterize the materials involved. For particulate
media such as soil, characterization can be performed through a series of standard laboratory index tests. For the geosynthetic, a quantitative evaluation of the surface geometry is required. Given the broad range of applications in which they are used, the surfaces of geomembranes are extremely variable and the selection of test equipment or
parameters to study them is not straightforward. No study has been reported which examines in detail the surface characteristics of geomembranes, especially at scales comparable to fine-grained soil commonly used in geosynthetics applications. This paper
presents a review of surface roughness terminology and surface roughness parameters
used in other research fields. A discussion of methods available to quantify the surface
topography of geosynthetics follows. Atomic force microscopy (AFM) is introduced
as a new tool for quantifying the microtopography of smooth geomembranes.
2

SURFACE TERMINOLOGY AND ROUGHNESS PARAMETERS

2.1

Terminology

Figure 1 presents a summary of terminology generally used to describe surfaces. At

large scales, the term texture refers to the visual/manual perception of the surface. For
example, in geosynthetics practice, texture may refer to the surface elements perceptible to the unaided eye and to touch (i.e. textured geomembranes versus smooth
geomembranes). Topography of a surface refers to the peaks, valleys and sideslopes, and vertical relief between peaks and valleys that constitute a certain texture.
The topography of most real surfaces is made up of superimposed waves of various
wavelengths. The term waviness is used to describe long wavelength, high amplitude
undulations on which a series of short wavelength, lower amplitude irregularities are
superimposed. These short wavelength irregularities constitute surface roughness
(Ward 1982, Chapter 4). The length at which waviness becomes roughness is not fixed
but depends on the application and the scale of interest.
Microtopography refers to one of these superimposed profiles at a localized region
of the surface. This region could be on a peak of an asperity, side-slope or valley of a
surface profile but does not include the overall surface topography. In geotechnical ap-

228

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Asperity
Microtopography

Waviness
Peak

Side-slope

Valley

Roughness

Figure 1. Terminology used to describe surface topography.

plications, roughness of a surface must be defined in terms of the predominant length

scales of soil grains at the interface. Hence, examination of microtopography may
prove to be important in describing the roughness of surfaces when fine-grained soils
are placed in contact with a geosynthetic, or when contact areas between geosynthetics
are small.
The surfaces encountered in geotechnical engineering practice, especially in applications involving geosynthetics, have an extremely large range of surface relief. Relief
ranges from the sub-micron for steel and smooth geomembrane surfaces, to several
millimeters for textured geomembranes and unfinished concrete surfaces; this represents approximately three orders of magnitude. In contrast to this large variation, those
surfaces for which most profiling equipment has been designed typically have asperity
heights in the sub-micron to nanometer range. This large difference in surface topography presents a challenge in the selection of appropriate equipment and scale to acquire
an accurate representation of the surface.
2.2

Surface Roughness Parameters

Describing surface roughness involves measurement of asperity height and distribution, and computation of an index of surface roughness. As explained in Section 3, asperity height and distribution measurements are typically made along a straight line
across the surface which yields a two-dimensional (2-D) profile. By closely spacing a
series of profile lines a three-dimensional (3-D) representation of the surface can be obtained.
According to Ward (1982, Chapter 4) there are approximately 23 different international standard measures of roughness. Since most of these standards were developed
for specific applications, use of the same profile information in each of these definitions
will yield different values of surface roughness. The proper choice of a roughness measure for a particular application is based on industry norms, or a parameter specifically
designated for the application. For geosynthetics applications, the parameter(s) which
correlate with field performance have not been determined.
Widely used measures of surface roughness are summarized in Table 1 and are related
to the fundamental parameters shown in Figure 2. Surface roughness parameters in-

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

229

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

clude average roughness, Ra , root mean square roughness, Rq , and maximum peak to
valley height, Rmax . Average roughness represents an average of the asperity heights
(absolute value) along a centerline defined as a line separating equal areas enclosed by
the profile above and below the line. The root mean square roughness is essentially the
standard deviation of the asperity heights above and below the datum. Moore (1972)
stated that if the distribution of asperity heights is normal, Ra and Rq are adequate to
completely characterize the surface statistically. Alternatively, by measuring of the actual area of a surface, the surface roughness parameter, Rs (Underwood and Banerji
1987, pp. 193-210) may be defined. In geomechanics applications, Kishida and Uesugi
(1987) and Paikowsky et al. (1995) used a modified roughness parameter Rn in which
the parameter Rmax was scaled to the median grain diameter, D50 , of the soil.
Table 1. Definition of roughness parameters for profile and surface based measurements.
Parameter

Definition

1. Average roughness, Ra

Ra = 1
L

z = profile height above datum

L = sampling length
Stachowiak and Batchelor (1993)

zdx
0

2R
Ra =
q
2. Root mean square
roughness, Rq

Rq =

3. Maximum peak to
valley roughness, Rmax

For Gaussian distribution of asperity heights (Ward 1982, Chapter 4)

1
L

Stachowiak and Batchelor (1993)

L
2

z dx

Maximum distance between the

highest point and the lowest point on
the profile

4. Modified roughness
parameter, Rn

Rn =

5. Surface roughness
parameter, Rs

Rs = Actual surface area

Projected surface area

Rmax(Li = D 50) **
D 50

Stachowiak and Batchelor (1993)

Kishida and Uesugi (1987)

Underwood and Banerji (1987)

Notes: Li = profiling length which equals D50 .** Rmax is determined over a length Li equal to D50 and the result
is scaled by D50 .

Li for profile length

based on D50

Rmax
L

Figure 2. Definition of parameters used in Table 1.

230

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

PROFILING METHODS

Figure 3 provides a summary of instruments which are of practical use for determining geomembrane surface roughness and their associated vertical measuring ranges.
The surface relief range of geomembranes for typical soil particle length scales is indicated for reference. The ranges shown in Figure 3 are approximate because equipment
manufacturers can vary their specifications or, actual equipment performance may not
be exactly in the stated range. Nevertheless, the ranges shown are a good indication of
the respective device capabilities.
3.1

Profilometry

The classical stylus profilometer shown in Figure 4 is the most popular method of
making profile measurements. It operates in a manner analogous to a phonograph and
consists of a finely ground stylus, typically on the order of 5 mm in diameter at the tip,
which is traversed over the surface at a controlled rate thereby making a recording of
the profile. Traverse lengths can range from only a few millimeters to 20 millimeters.
Since the stylus contacts the surface of the material, this method is known as a contact
method. The resolution of these instruments is on the order of 10 to 50 nm. A stylus

Vertical relief (m)

Figure 3. Approximate equipment operating ranges for measuring surface topography.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

231

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Horizontal
displacement
controller and
actuator

Stylus
LVDT
Movement
Surface

Computer data
acquisition and
control

Figure 4. Schematic diagram of a stylus instrument.

instrument was used by Yoshimi and Kishida (1981) and by Kishida and Uesugi (1987)
to measure Rmax of the steel surface of a sand-steel interface.
An advantage of stylus instruments is that the recorded trace can easily be processed
via computer to obtain a desired roughness parameter. A major disadvantage of stylus
instruments for geosynthetics applications is that to obtain high resolution, the typical
vertical stroke is limited to a range of approximately 0.01 to 300 mm which means it
can be used only on smooth geomembranes. This limitation has been confirmed by Vaid
and Rinne (1995). Other disadvantages of the stylus instrument include scratching
(damaging) soft geomembrane surfaces during profiling thus altering the measured profile, and sticking or breaking of the needle on rougher surfaces.
Another type of stylus instrument uses a precision linear variable displacement transducer (LVDT) in place of the needle assembly of the stylus instrument which allows
greater vertical travel range. Figure 3 shows that this instrument has a higher useful upper limit of vertical travel than the traditional stylus instrument and may be suited for
textured geomembranes. It has the same advantages in terms of data reduction as the
stylus instrument but also shares the same disadvantages.
The non-contact laser profilometer uses a reflected beam of laser light instead of
a stylus to measure surface topography in a manner similar to an electronic distance
measuring device. For relatively soft surfaces such as geomembranes, a non-contact device has the advantage over a contact device that the surface will not be damaged during
profiling. Current devices are capable of sub-nanometer resolution but are limited to
a vertical relief of about 100 mm. Horizontal traverses of up to 100 mm are possible.
Another significant feature is that 3-D images of the surface can be produced from a
series of closely spaced profiles. Most commercial units have a computer data acquisition system that collects the data and pre-programmed analysis packages can be used
to calculate a number of roughness parameters.

232

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

A major disadvantage of laser devices is that they rely on reflected light for distance
measurement. This limits their usage to reflective surfaces such as steel machine parts,
computer hard-drive disks and compact disks. It has been the authors experience that,
depending on surface finish, some smooth geomembranes may have surface reflectance
sufficient for these devices. However, as the degree of texturing increases the amount
of incident light that is scattered and not reflected back to the device increases resulting
in insufficient light to generate an accurate response. Therefore, for these surfaces, use
of a non-contact method may not be feasible.
3.2

Digital Image Analysis

The use of a digital image analyzer coupled with microscopes and video cameras is
a rapidly emerging method of surface analysis. Image analysis involves digitizing an
image composed of small picture elements called pixels. A computer video image typically has 512 pixels in both the horizontal and vertical directions. Each pixel is assigned
an intensity value (gray level) which is scaled from 0-255 with 0 representing black and
255 representing white. The video image can be digitized automatically into a binary
image in which those pixels below a pre-set threshold value are turned off (black) and
those above the threshold are turned on (white). Analyses may be carried out on both
the gray and the binary images to produce an estimate of the surface roughness.
A laser scanning (confocal) microscope has been used by Lange et al. (1993) to measure the roughness of fracture surfaces in Portland cement pastes and mortar mixes. The
device differs from standard optical microscopes in that instead of the entire 3-D image
being viewed at once, the microscope focuses on only one thin horizontal plane at a time
while all other planes are excluded. If images from a series of closely spaced horizontal
planes are collected, image analysis may be used to create a 3-D topographic map which
can then be used to compute roughness parameters. The confocal microscopes available
today can image surfaces with relief in the range of 1to 1000 mm which covers the range
corresponding to smooth and rough geomembranes, as shown in Figure 3.
4

ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPY

AFM is a recently developed surface science tool which brings together aspects of
scanning tunneling microscopy (STM) and stylus profiling instruments (Binning et al.
1986; Marti et al. 1987; Albrecht and Quate 1988; Weisenhorn et al. 1989). AFM can
be used in geosynthetics applications with unique advantages over other surface analysis techniques. First, it has the ability to image non-conductive material surfaces in air
or in aqueous solutions. Second, the atomic force microscope is a very high resolution
stylus instrument. Therefore, it has an advantage over optical or scanning electron microscopic (SEM) methods in that it can map 3-D surface topography at a resolution as
small as a few angstroms (10-10 m). The atomic force microscope used in this study can
image an area up to 130 mm 130 mm with a maximum relief of about 1 mm.
The microscope consists of a sharp tip mounted on the end of a cantilever, a piezoelectric transducer, optical head, and computer-controlled feedback and data acquisition
system, as shown schematically in Figure 5. The Nanoscope III system (Digital Instruments, Inc. 1993) used in this study is capable of operating in either contact mode or

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

233

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Photodiode detector
From laser source
Mirror
Cantilever and tip
approximately 300 kHz
(tapping mode)

Specimen

Piezoelectric
transducer

Specimen x, y, z-position
control

Computer controlled data

acquisition and feedback
system

Figure 5. AFM operation schematic (modified from Digital Instruments, Inc. 1993).

Tapping Mode (hereafter referred to as tapping mode). The general principles of AFM
operation are better understood by beginning with a description of contact mode.
In contact mode, a silicon nitride tip on the end of a microfabricated cantilever is
brought into contact with the specimen. A laser beam is reflected off the end of the cantilever and onto a split photodiode detector. A feedback system constantly adjusts the
vertical (z) position of the piezoelectric transducer to keep the laser target in the center
of the photodiode. This constant adjustment of the z position serves to maintain a
constant cantilever deflection, and corresponding force, on the specimen. Surface topography is mapped as the specimen is moved in a x-y raster pattern by the piezoelectric
transducer. In contact mode, forces induced by deflection of the cantilever are typically
in the range of 10-7 to 10-11 N.
Tapping mode AFM has been developed to improve image resolution, enable a wider
range of soft and sticky materials to be imaged, and permit mapping of high relief surfaces. In tapping mode, the cantilever and tip are excited to resonance by a piezoelectric
cell located in the cantilever holder, as shown in Figure 5. The specimen is then raised
to a point where it contacts the tip at its lowest point of oscillation. The feedback system
then seeks to maintain a constant amplitude of tip oscillation by comparing a voltage

234

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

signal generated at the photodiode detector by the position of the laser target with a userselected setpoint voltage. The piezoelectric transducer rasters the sample in the x and
y direction at a rate of about 1 Hz, and adjusts the z position as required to maintain a
constant tip amplitude. By changing the setpoint voltage, the amount of force exerted
on the sample during each tap can be adjusted.
5

EXPERIMENTAL METHODS

5.1

Geomembrane Sample Characteristics and Preparation

The materials used in this study consisted of 1 mm (40 mil) thick non-textured Gundline HD high density polyethylene (HDPE) and Hyperelastic very low density polyethylene (VLDPE) geomembranes. The geomembranes are produced by a blown film
extrusion process before being longitudinally split and rolled. Typical properties are
given in Table 2. These materials are used in many geotechnical applications including
landfill liner and cover systems. HDPE geomembranes are typically used as a member
in composite liner systems and VLDPE geomembranes are typically used in landfill cap
systems.
Samples were obtained by cutting 900 mm long by 350 mm wide strips with a razor
blade in the cross-machine direction of each geomembrane from roll stock. Care was
taken not to include material located within approximately 150 mm from the edges of
the rolls since it was observed that the surface in this area was scarred and not representative of the geomembrane surface.
Table 2. Selected geomembrane properties.
Polymer

Property

HDPE

VLDPE

Thickness (mm)

1.0 nominal

1.0 nominal

Density (g/cc)

0.94

0.910 - 0.929

Carbon black (%)

2-3

2-3

Youngs modulus (MPa)

552 - 758

138 - 152
(2% secant modulus)

Breaking strength (N/mm)

28

22

Elongation at break (%)

700

900

Thermal expansion coefficient (10-4 mm/mm_C)

2.0 maximum

2.0 maximum

Type D hardness

50 minimum

40 minimum

Volatile loss (%)

0.3 maximum

0.3 maximum

Thermal stability (minutes)

2000 minimum

2000 minimum

Hardness (ASTM D 2240)

50 - 60 minimum

40 minimum

Note: Source - Gundle/SLT Lining Systems, Inc., product literature.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

235

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

5.2

AFM Imaging

Geomembrane specimens for AFM imaging were cut using a razor blade into 3 mm
to 5 mm squares from the middle one-third of the geomembrane samples. Care was taken to avoid placing fingerprints or scratches on the surfaces. No special cleaning of the
surfaces was performed in order to simulate the as received condition as closely as
possible. Each specimen was then mounted onto a metallic puck using double sided
tape. The puck was placed onto a magnetic specimen holder on top of the AFM piezoelectric transducer and a 100 mm2 area of the specimen was imaged in tapping mode.
Since the largest size of a phyllosilicate mineral (in a clay liner) is on the order of 10
mm, a total image area of 1,000 mm2 for each geomembrane sample was considered to
be an adequate representation of the surface for this study. Ten 100 mm2 images were
collected from each sample using a separate specimen for each image.
Each of the images was later processed to remove any z-direction offset between scan
lines using a preprogrammed zero order polynomial correction routine. The z-direction
offset lowers image quality by creating a series of horizontal lines in the image. The
correction procedure subtracted the average z value of each scan line from every point
in the scan line. This gave greater continuity to the image which was more representative of the specimen.
6

RESULTS

6.1

General

Surface roughness parameters, surface area, and fractal dimension were computed
for each specimen using analysis routines preprogrammed in the Nanoscope III system.
The roughness parameters included the mean roughness, Ra , the root mean square
(RMS) roughness, Rq , and the surface roughness parameter, Rs . Appendix A presents
the definitions of these parameters for surface-based measurements made using AFM.
Tables 3 and 4 present data collected for each specimen image.
The actual 3-D surface area of each image was computed by the Nanoscope III and
compared with the projected 2-D area (100 mm2). The actual surface area was computed
by summing the areas of all triangles formed by adjacent data points on the surface. For
example, a perfectly flat specimen would have a surface area of 100 mm2, whereas a
specimen with peaks and valleys will have a surface area greater than 100 mm2 due to
the contribution of the faces of the peaks and valleys to the overall area.
As an alternative indicator of surface roughness, the fractal dimension of the surface
was determined using a preprogrammed routine in the Nanoscope III. Stachowiak and
Batchelor (1993) concluded that surface topography is typically random unless regular
topographic components have been imposed. They argue that if a surface profile is random, it will appear the same regardless of the scale to which it is magnified. This selfsimilarity concept is the basis for application of fractal mathematics (Mandelbrot 1983)
to the problem of characterization of surface roughness.

236

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Table 3. AFM imaging results for HDPE geomembrane.

Roughness parameters

Specimen/
Image

Image
area
(mm2)

Image z
range
(nm)

Fractal
dimension

1A11.002

100

470.95

1A12.004

100

1A13.005

100

1A14.010

Rq
(nm)

Ra
(nm)

Rq
Ra

Surface
area
(mm2)

Rs

2.088

78.43

60.39

1.30

106.00

1.060

745.11

2.079

106.58

83.68

1.27

106.40

1.064

711.01

2.102

87.57

63.50

1.38

112.56

1.126

100

636.23

2.107

90.15

72.05

1.25

114.61

1.146

1A15.015

100

1592.00

2.093

222.28

165.72

1.34

111.44

1.114

1A16.026

100

708.62

2.100

119.61

94.40

1.26

108.70

1.087

1A17.028

100

550.39

2.073

99.04

76.86

1.29

101.71

1.017

1A18.029

100

775.24

2.107

156.90

132.09

1.18

108.85

1.089

1A19.030

100

639.58

2.086

95.98

71.04

1.35

104.07

1.041

1A110.031

100

678.24

2.119

98.69

77.66

1.27

123.67

1.237

Notes: See Table 5 for average values of parameters. z = z-coordinate, vertical plane, profile height above
datum.

Table 4. AFM imaging results for VLDPE geomembrane.

Roughness parameters

Specimen/
Image

Image
area
(mm2)

Image z
range
(nm)

Fractal
dimension

ldpe.001

100

1342.00

ldpe.002

100

796.54

2A11.006

100

2A12.007
2A13.008

Rq
Ra

Surface
area
(mm2)

Rs

137.11

1.25

114.32

1.143

75.19

1.26

113.47

1.135

262.54

189.86

1.38

114.03

1.140

2.074

86.32

71.86

1.20

103.54

1.035

2.091

117.40

96.49

1.22

104.63

1.046

438.74

2.069

87.99

74.59

1.18

103.29

1.033

705.20

2.104

86.70

68.70

1.26

106.35

1.064

Rq
(nm)

Ra
(nm)

2.133

171.78

2.122

95.18

2005.00

2.141

100

428.28

100

687.35

2A14.041

100

2A15.42

100

2A16.43

100

588.70

2.093

98.38

76.65

1.28

106.43

1.064

2A17.043

100

1621.00

2.109

199.45

129.50

1.54

109.14

1.091

2A18.044

100

1217.00

2.114

156.46

110.20

1.42

109.09

1.091

Note: See Table 5 for average values of parameters.

For geomembrane surfaces, there appears to be a limit to which the self-similarity

concept can be applied. Using visual/manual procedures, a non-textured geomembrane
surface would be described as very smooth. However, as magnification is increased, the
surface profile becomes more defined and measurements made of the same surface at
progressively smaller scales (depending on instrument resolution) should appear selfsimilar for the concept to strictly apply. For manufactured surfaces, such as smooth geomembrane surfaces, there is an imposed regularity caused, for example, by streaks or

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

237

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

grooves made on the surface by the die during the extrusion process. Such imposed regularity, which is not scale invariant, may cause these surfaces not to be truly fractal in
nature. According to Underwood and Banerji (1987, pp. 212-215) nonfractal behavior
has been found in many studies of natural and man-made materials and they refer to
these nonfractal materials as semifractal.
The fractal dimension computation scheme used in this study involved superimposing a 3-D array of cubes over the image so that they intersected the image boundaries.
This process was repeated for different size cubes and the number of cubes of each size
intersecting the boundary was summed. The scaled fractal dimension was taken as the
slope of the least squares fit line to the plot of, logarithm of cell count versus logarithm
of cell size. Because the image data is digital, the minimum cube size is equal to the
spacing between 8 data points; for a 10 mm scan size, this corresponds to a minimum
cube dimension of about 160 nm.
6.2

Geomembrane Microtopography

Typical results from the present study are shown in Figures 6 and 7. The surfaces of
the geomembranes are not smooth and flat as might be concluded from visual inspection of a sample. Significant differences in microtopography between the HDPE and
VLDPE geomembranes are observed by comparing Figures 6 and 7.
The HDPE specimens show some evidence of oriented lamellar structure similar to
structures shown in Woodward (1989) for polyethylene crystallized in a longitudinal
flow field. It is likely that these structures are the result of surface crystallization during
fabrication and are not indicative of the internal polymer crystal structure. In contrast,
the VLDPE specimens show very different microtopography. The specimens have large
irregularly-shaped structures on their surface which are believed to be an oligomeric
compound. Oligomeric compounds are low molecular weight processing materials
which rise to the surface during the melt stage of polymer processing.
Figure 8 presents profiles through the center of representative images from one HDPE
and one VLDPE specimen and illustrates the differences in microtopography between
HDPE and VLDPE geomembranes. The profiles also show that the microtopography
of geomembranes can be described using the model of superimposed wavelengths discussed in Section 2.1. The HDPE geomembrane profile demonstrates more noticeable
periodicity than the VLDPE specimen. In contrast, the topography of the VLDPE specimen has larger, more rounded asperities and lacks noticeable periodicity.
Also shown on each profile of Figure 8 is a schematic representation of a kaolinite
clay particle in close proximity to the surface. The clay particle has a length of 2 mm
and a thickness of 0.1 mm (100 nm) which is within the typical range observed in SEM
photographs, as described by Grim (1968). When compared to the schematic clay particle, it is seen that both the HDPE and VLDPE geomembrane surfaces would present
interference to horizontal movement if the particle was sheared across the surface. This
restriction to shear extends to a maximum of 350 nm for HDPE and about 250 nm for
VLDPE. It may also be seen that for purely horizontal movement, topography within
the length of each element is of little importance to sliding (other than friction at asperity tips). Therefore, for horizontally oriented rectangular elements such as clay particles,
the asperity height distribution or a measure of asperity heights (such as Ra , Rq , Rmax

238

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

(a)

For profile
see Figure 8

(b)

Figure 6. AFM images of smooth HDPE geomembrane: (a) specimen 1A13; (b) specimen
1A18.

and Rn ) may possibly be good predictors of interface performance. These observations

illustrate the practical importance of studying microtopography.
6.3

Data Analysis

Comparing the values in Table 5 it may be seen that the VLDPE specimens exhibited,
on average, greater topographic relief than the HDPE specimens. Data for the individual tests (Tables 3 and 4) indicates that the maximum and minimum relief for the HDPE
specimens was approximately 1590 (1.59 mm) to 470 nm (0.47 mm) while the maximum
and minimum relief for the VLDPE specimens was 2000 (2.0 mm) to 430 nm (0.43 mm).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

239

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

(a)

For profile
see Figure 8

(b)

Figure 7. AFM images of smooth VLDPE geomembrane: (a) specimen 2A15; (b) specimen
2A16.

Table 5. Summary of geomembrane roughness values.

Mean values/Standard deviations
Geomembrane
polymer

Image z
range
(nm)

Fractal
dimension

Rq
(nm)

Ra
(nm)

Surface
area
(mm2)

Rs

HDPE

751
309.27

2.095
0.014

115.52
43.39

89.74
33.58

109.80
6.26

1.098
0.062

VLDPE

983
536.86

2.105
0.023

136.20
59.96

103.02
39.34

108.43
4.29

1.084
0.043

240

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Surface height (nm)

(a)
Kaolinite particle

HDPE geomembrane specimen 1A13

Surface height (nm)

(b)
Kaolinite particle

VLDPE geomembrane specimen 2A15

Horizontal distance (mm)

Figure 8. Selected profiles of geomembrane surface microtopography: (a) HDPE,
specimen 1A13; (b) VLDPE, specimen 2A15.
Note: Vertical scale exaggerated.

The average and standard deviation roughness parameters Ra and Rq are also greater
for the VLDPE geomembrane specimens. These parameters show significant variation
from the mean. However, the average values of surface roughness parameter, Rs , for
VLDPE specimens are less than the average Rs of the HDPE specimens indicating that
more of the VLDPE surface is oriented horizontally than the HDPE surface. This is consistent with the greater roughness values for VLDPE since a surface with greater topographic relief and greater variation in asperity height will have greater values of the statistical parameters Ra and Rq . This also appears consistent with the VLDPE profile of
Figure 8. The variation of Rs is seen to be significantly less than that of Ra and Rq .
For a Gaussian distribution of asperity height, statistical theory shows that the ratio
of Rq to Ra should be 1.25. Ward (1982, Chapter 4) notes that the asperity height distribution of most engineering surfaces (tribology) may be approximated by a Gaussian distribution with Rq /Ra values of up to 1.31. As shown in Tables 3 and 4, the values of Rq /Ra
using data collected from AFM imaging are reasonably close to the value of 1.25 pre-

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

241

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

dicted by theory. This result is significant since it indicates that, at the imaging scale,
the asperity height distribution of these geomembrane surfaces are approximately
Gaussian and that the statistical relationships for surface roughness are applicable.
Average values of fractal dimension range from 2.095 for HDPE specimens to 2.105
for VLDPE specimens and are very close to 2.00 - the dimension of a plane surface.
These values are not directly comparable to the fractal dimension computed by the
method of Vallejo and Zhou (1995) since, in the present study, fractal dimension was
computed from a 3-D surface and represents the deviation from a plane (volume filling).
Values computed by Vallejo and Zhou (1995) for textured geomembranes range from
1.001 to 1.1345 and represent the deviation from a line (area filling). The filling method, as applied by Vallejo and Zhou, does not permit explicit consideration of any surface
roughness anisotropy.
7

CONCLUSIONS

Tapping mode AFM is a new tool which offers significant potential for the study of
the surface characteristics of geosynthetics. Since quantitative microtopographic data
are obtained, the method is a valuable supplement to other microscopy and profiling
methods. It has the ability to not only image a material surface but provide measures
of its spatial and physical properties. AFM may also benefit the geosynthetics industry
in forensic studies of post-failure micro-deformation or degradation of geosynthetic
samples.
Application of the method to determine the microtopography of widely used smooth
geomembranes has been discussed in this paper. The results show that smooth geomembranes have significant microtopography within a 10 mm2 scan size and that topographic relief ranges from approximately 460 (0.46 mm) to 2,400 nm (2.4 mm). This microtopography can be quantified using the roughness parameters Ra , Rq and Rs .
Characterization of the microtopography through the use of roughness parameters may
prove useful as a basis for correlating field performance behavior of composite geosynthetic systems with surface roughness. However, due to limitations of current mechanical profiling equipment, methods to quantify the roughness of textured surfaces are
presently not available.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors thank Gundle/SLT Lining Systems of Houston, Texas for supplying the
geomembrane samples. This work was supported by Grant Number CMS-9457549
from the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES
Albrecht, T.R. and Quate, C.F., 1988, Atomic Resolution with the Atomic Force Microscope on Conductors and Non-Conductors, Journal of Vacuum Science Technology, Vol. A6, No. 2, pp. 271-274.

242

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

ASTM D 2240, Test Method for Rubber Property-Durometer Hardness, American

Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA.
Binning, G., Quate, C.F. and Gerber, C., 1986, Atomic Force Microscope, Physical
Review Letters, Vol. 56, No. 9, pp. 930-933.
Bemben, S.M. and Schulze, D.A., 1995, The Influence of Testing Procedures on Clay/
Geomembrane Shear Strength Measurements, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 95,
IFAI, Vol. 3, Nashville, Tennessee, USA, February 1995, pp. 1043-1056.
Digital Instruments, Inc., 1993, Command Reference Manual, Nanoscope III, Santa
Barbara, California, USA, 307 p.
Grim, R.E., 1968, Clay Mineralogy, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, New
York, USA, 596 p.
Han, J., 1995, Personal communication, Georgia Institute of Technology, Department
of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.
Kishida, H. and Uesugi, M., 1987, Tests of the Interface Between Sand and Steel in
the Simple Shear Apparatus, Geotechnique, Vol. 37, No. 1, pp. 45-52.
Lange, D.A., Jennings, H.M. and Shah, S.P., 1993, Analysis of Surface Roughness using Confocal Microscopy, Journal of Materials Science, Vol. 28, No. 14, pp.
3879-3884.
Mandelbrot, B.B., 1983, The Fractal Geometry of Nature, W.H. Freeman, New York,
New York, USA, 468 p.
Marti, O., Drake, B. and Hansma, P.K., 1987, Atomic Force Microscopy of LiquidCovered Surfaces: Atomic Resolution Images, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 51, No.
7, pp. 484-486.
Moore, D.F., 1972, The Friction and Lubrication of Elastomers, Pergamon Press,
New York, New York, USA, 288 p.
Paikowsky, S.G., Player, C.P. and Connors, P.J., 1995, A Dual Interface Apparatus for
Testing Unrestricted Friction of Soil along Solid Surfaces, Geotechnical Testing
Journal, Vol. 18, No. 2, pp. 168-193.
Stachowiak, G.W. and Batchelor, A.W., 1993, Engineering Tribology, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 872 p.
Underwood, E.E. and Banerji, K., 1987, Metals Handbook, Vol. 12, ASM, Metals
Park, OH, 512 p.
Vaid, Y.P. and Rinne, N., 1995, Geomembrane Coefficients of Interface Friction,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 309-325.
Vallejo, L.E. and Zhou, Y., 1995, Fractal Approach to Measuring Roughness of Geomembranes, Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 5, pp. 442-446.
Ward, H.C., 1982, Profile Characterization, Rough Surfaces, Thomas, T. R., Ed.,
Longman, London, 261 p.
Weisenhorn, A.L., Hansma, P.K., Albrecht, T.R. and Quate, C.F., 1989, Forces in
Atomic Force Microscopy in Air and Water, Applied Physics Letters, Vol. 54, No.
26, pp. 2651-2653.

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

243

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

Williams, N.D. and Houlihan, M.F., 1987, Evaluation of Interface Friction Properties
Between Geosynthetics and Soils, Proceedings of Geosynthetics 87, IFAI, Vol. 2,
New Orleans, Louisiana, USA, February 1987, pp. 616-627.
Woodward, A.E., 1989, Atlas of Polymer Morphology, Hanser Publishers, Munich,
Germany, 531 p.
Yoshimi, Y. and Kishida, T., 1981, A Ring Torsion Apparatus for Evaluating Friction
Between Soil and Metal Surfaces, Geotechnical Testing Journal, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp.
145-152.
NOTATIONS
Basic SI units are given in parentheses.
Ra
Rq
Rs
Rmax
D50
L
Li
Lx
Ly
x
y
z
Zave
Zi
N

=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=

mean or centerline average roughness (m)

root mean square roughness (m)
surface roughness parameter (dimensionless)
maximum peak-to-valley roughness (m)
median grain diameter (50% passing) (m)
sampling length (m)
sampling length which equals D50 (m)
sampling length in x-direction (m)
sampling length in y-direction (m)
x-coordinate, horizontal plane (m)
y-coordinate, horizontal plane (m)
z-coordinate, vertical plane, profile height above datum (m)
average z value (height) (m)
current z value (m)
number of samples

ABBREVIATIONS
AFM:
HDPE:
LVDT:
STM:
SEM:
VLDPE:

244

atomic force microscopy

high density polyethylene
linear variable displacement transducer
scanning tunneling microscope
scanning electron microscope
very low density polyethylene

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

DOVE, FROST AND DOVE D Geomembrane Microtopography by Atomic Force Microscopy

APPENDIX
The following are definitions of the roughness parameters for surface-based
measurements using AFM.
The mean roughness, Ra , is the mean of the absolute value of surface height relative
to a center plane and is computed by:
Ra =

1
Lx L y

Ly

Lx

f(x, y)dx dy

(A-1)

where: f(x, y) = equation of the surface relative to the center plane; and Lx and Ly = xand y-dimensions of the surface image (10 mm). The center plane is defined as a flat
plane passing through the z data (height) and located at a point where volumes of image
surface above and below the plane are equal (Digital Instruments, Inc. 1993).
The RMS roughness is the standard deviation of the z values (height) and is given by:
Rq =

(Z N Z
i

)2

ave

(A-2)

where Zave = average z value in the image; Zi = current z value; and N = number of data
points in the image (Digital Instruments, Inc. 1993).
The surface roughness parameter, Rs , is the actual surface area divided by the projected area. In the case of 10 mm2 scan sizes, the projected area is a constant 100 mm2
(Digital Instruments, Inc. 1993).

GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL

S 1996, VOL. 3, NO. 2

245