CVEN90027 Geotechnical Applications

Assignment 1 The Hydrologic Eval ation o! "and!ill #er!ormance $Help%

&in 'eng (2))(1 Hao *ing 29011) Hoc+ T, n Gan (2)1-.

Year: 2012

Abstract
This report outlines the performance analysis of a landfill containment system using the Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance ( isual HELP! soft"are# arious scenarios are applied$ including different locations and particular design specifications of the containment system# There are % parts to this report: Part 1: The containment system sho"n in &ig# 1 is modelled on isual HELP for three different locations' (el)ourne$ *ris)ane and Perth# The performance of the system is measured in terms of its capacity to prevent "ater into the cell and also out to the surrounding environment$ and to collect leachate timely for treatment+disposal# Part 2: , sensitivity analysis is carried out on the containment system )y considering the effect of having a different - i! hydraulic conductivity of the )ase liner soil$ ii! Leaf ,rea .nde/$ "hich is a measure of the amount of surface vegetation$ and iii! slope for the leachate collection layer# Part %: , guideline regarding the cap performance provided )y EP, ictoria is considered for the containment system in &ig# 1# , slightly modified cap design as sho"n in &ig# 2 is modelled on isual HELP and its performance assessed in the same "ay as in Part 1#

Fall

Final Cap

Topsoil Sand Clay

300mm 200mm 500mm

Waste

20, 000mm

150mm dia . slotted pipes @ 10m pipe spacing

Leachate Collection System Composite Liner

Fall

Gravel

H !" Geomem#rane

300mm

Compacted Clay %n&sit' Soil

$00mm

/ig re 10 "and!ill containment system design !or #art 11

Fall

Final Cap

Topsoil H !" Geomem#rane Sand Clay

300mm 200mm 500mm

Waste

20, 000mm

150mm dia . slotted pipes @ 10m pipe spacing

Leachate Collection System Composite Liner

Fall

Gravel

H !" Geomem#rane

300mm

Compacted Clay %n&sit' Soil

$00mm

/ig re 20 2odi!ied containment system !or #art (1

Part 1
1.1 CAP LEAKAGE
The first performance criterion is the capacity of the cap to prevent "ater from entering the cell#

/ig re (0 3ater lea+age thro gh the top clay layer $cap%1

&igure % sho"s the annual lea0age volume going through the top clay layer# ,s evident$ *ris)ane has the largest amount of lea0age$ ranging from 1%00m % to 2000m%# Perth ran0s the second$ ranging from 210m% to 1200m%# (el)ourne has the smallest amount$ from 0 to 100m%# This is due to the different latitudinal positions and thus the climate of the three sites# *ris)ane has a humid su)tropical climate$ "ith large amounts of rainfall$ especially from 3ovem)er to (arch# Perth has more of a (editerranean climate$ also "ith seasonal rainfall )ut moderate compared to *ris)ane$ "hile (el)ourne has a moderate oceanic climate "hich is unpredicta)le relative to the t"o other cities$ )ut "ith significantly less rainfall throughout the year# &igure 4$ 1 5 2 sho" the same information$ )ut in percentages of total rainfall in that area# The percentage values might not )e legi)le on the graphs$ )ut for all % cities$ the annual lea0ages through the cap are in the order of 10 64 7$ "ith (el)ourne recording ma/imum values of around % / 1064 7$ Perth "ith 1 / 1064 7$ and *ris)ane "ith 8 / 1064 7# Even though the amount of lea0age into the *ris)ane and Perth cell is considera)ly more than in (el)ourne in terms of total volume$ they are not too dissimilar in terms of percentage of rainfall# Evidently$ from the cap performance alone$ it seems that the design is much more suita)le for (el)ourne than it is for *ris)ane or Perth$ )ut considering the significantly higher amount of rainfall in those cities$ the cap performance is still 9uite encouraging#

/ig re )0 &ris4ane 5 lea+age thro gh cap in 6 o! rain!all1

/ig re -0 #erth 5 lea+age thro gh cap in 6 o! rain!all1

/ig re .0 2el4o rne 5 lea+age thro gh cap in 6 o! rain!all1

1.2 LEACHATE COLLECTION

The second criterion is the capacity of the leachate collection system (:ravel drainage layer$ pipes and geomem)rane! to drain leachate a"ay so as to reduce the hydraulic head on the underlying )arrier soil layer#

/ig re 70 Vol me o! leachate collected at the 4ottom drainage layer1

&igure 8 sho"s the amount of leachate )eing collected )y the drainage system$ "hich accounts for virtually all of the lea0age through the cap for all three cities# This indicates that the performance of the leachate collection system is e/cellent#

1.3 B ASE LINER LEAKAGE

/ig re 70 "ea+age thro gh the 4ase liner

,s &igure ; sho"s and as previously suggested$ the amount of percolation through the )ase liner is very small$ "ith most of the leachate )eing drained a"ay )y the collection system# The (el)ourne values range from 0 to 0#02 m%$ Perth from 0#01 to 0#04 m% (aside from a 0#081 reading in one year!$ and *ris)ane from 0#08 to 0#11 m%# ,ccording to Ta)le 2#1 of EP, ic# *est Practice guidelines$ a liner system similar to the one in this model ()ut "ith additional geote/tiles enclosing the drainage layer! is used to control seepages to amounts not e/ceeding 10 L+ha+day# That is e9uivalent to 1$481 L+year of lea0age at a 1#1 ha site# To put our model into perspective$ the ma/imum annual lea0age (from *ris)ane! is 0#11 m% "hich is e9ual to 110 L# That is still significantly less than the EP, estimate for the similar type of liner# 3ote that the EP, value 9uoted is not the regulation ma/imum lea0age allo"ed )ut <ust an estimate of the amount of lea0age through liners of the type in our model$ so the suita)ility of the containment system still depends on the allo"a)le lea0age at the specific landfill site#

1.4 SUMMARY & RECOMMEN ATIONS

.n summary$ )ased on the performance criteria outlined$ it is clear that the landfill containment system detailed in &ig# 1 is most suita)le for (el)ourne$ and less so for Perth and *ris)ane# Ho"ever$ the performance of the cap and )ase liner systems is mainly dictated )y the amount of rainfall in the respective areas$ and "hen lea0age in terms of percentage of rainfall is considered$ the performance of those systems are not too far )ehind compared to (el)ourne# The performance of the leachate collection system is e/cellent$ as it collects virtually all of the lea0age through the cap layer#

=verall$ the design of the containment system is encouraging$ and it suggests that only minor modifications to the liner design are re9uired to increase the performance to the desired level# >ome recommendations to improve the performance of the containment cell are as follo"s: 1# Reduce hydraulic conductivity of clay in cap and base liner - )y selecting materials as such# 2# Install a geomembrane liner in cap layer - to allo" more time for "ater to drain through the sand and reduce hydraulic head on the underlying clay layer$ thuse reducing the lea0age through the cap# %# Increase density of vegetation at the ground - to increase the amount of "ater lost through evapotranspiration$ "hich already accounts for a ma<or proportion of rainfall# This "ill also reduce runoff )ut the amount of runoff is relatively small# 4# Increase the drainage layer slope - to help reduce the hydraulic head on the underlying clay layer# This "ill also reduce sedimentation and thus )loc0age in the pipes#

Part 2
&or the second part of this report$ a sensitivity analysis is conducted to the containment system at the (el)ourne site#

2.1 INCREASE HY RAULIC CON UCTI!ITY

The hydraulic conductivity of the )arrier soil material used in the )ase liner is increased from the initial value of 1 / 106? m+s to 1 / 106; m+s$ and the change in the lea0age through the liner is o)served#

/ig re 90 "ea+age thro gh the 4ase liner 8ith higher hydra lic cond ctivity1

&igure ? sho"s that "ith the hydraulic conductivity increased tenfold to 1 / 10 6; m+s$ the lea0age through the )ase liner dramatically increases )y roughly a factor of 1# Possi)le reasons as to "hy the hydraulic conductivity is increased could )e the lac0 of suita)le clay material or unsatisfactory 9uality control during the compaction of the clay layer# .t is 9uite evident that the hydraulic conductivity is a sensitive and vulnera)le parameter$ especially considering the relative ease for situations li0e the lac0 in suita)le materials or 9uality control to occur on site# &or this reason$ in >ection 2#%#2 of the EP, *est Practices guideline$ the minimum hydraulic conductivity of the material used for the liner is specified to )e at lo"er than 1 / 106? m+s#

2.2 INCREASE !EGETATION

To represent an increase in the amount of surface vegetation$ the Leaf ,rea .nde/ (L,.! is increased from the initial value of 2 to 1#

/ig re 100 "ea+age thro gh the 4ase liner 8ith higher "A91

,s sho"n in &igure 10$ the impact of increasing the L,. from 2 to 1 is generally insignificant$ "ith the amount of lea0age staying almost the same and in some years$ deacreasing and increasing#

/ig re 110 Total amo nt o! percolation thro gh liner in m(

&igure 11 sho"s the total amount of percolation through the )ottom layer# The total amount actually decreases slightly "ith the increase in vegetation$ though inspection of the evapotranspiration volume in &igure 12 suggests that this decrease in percolation is pro)a)ly due to the different "eather data generated in the simulation$ and not the effect of increased vegetation#

"ea! inde: 2

"ea! inde: -

Evapotranspiration $m(% ; no!! $m(%

220118#22 44#02;

21?810#?4 %4#110

/ig re 120 Comparison o! evapotranspiration and r no!! amo nts

&igure 12 also sho"s that the amount of runoff is reduced "hen the L,. is set to 1# , denser surface vegetation provides more o)stacles for "ater running off the surface and thus decreases runoff$ )ut the amount of runoff is 9uite insignificant to start "ith# .n summary$ increasing the amount of vegetation seems to )e ineffective at improving the performance of the containment system#

2.3 I NCREASE

RAINAGE SLOPE

The drainage slope in the leachate collection layer is increased from 2 to 17#

/ig re 1(0 "ea+age thro gh 4ase liner 8ith steeper drainage slope

Evidently$ increasing the slope results in less percolation through the )ase liner# The steeper slope causes the leachate collected in the drainage layer to drain out more 9uic0ly and thus reduce the amount of hydraulic head on the underlying clay liner# .ncreasing the slope )y a factor of 2#1 (from 2 to 17! resulted in the lea0age decreasing )y roughly 107# , side effect of increasing the drainage slope "hich is not sho"n in the graph a)ove$ is that the collection pipes are less li0ely$ or "ill ta0e longer$ to get clogged up "ith sediments# This can increase the useful life6span of the leachate collection system# .n general$ increasing the slope seems to )e a via)le option to improve the performance of the leachate collection system#

2.4 SUMMARY O" SENSITI!ITY ANALYSIS

/ig re 1)0 < mmary comparison o! percolation !or varied parameters1

.t can )e o)served from &igure 14 that the most sensitive factor "ill )e the hydraulic conductivity# ,s discussed )efore$ changing the hydraulic conductivity from 1 / 10 6? m+s to 1 / 106; m+s resulted in the percolation increasing )y a)out a factor of 1# Therefore in constructing a landfill containment system$ it is pro)a)ly )etter to focus efforts on ensuring the availa)ility of materials (clay! "ith a hydraulic conductivity of less than 1 / 10 6? m+s for the liners and to ensure a strict and thorough 9uality control system in the construction of the clay liners# ,lso note that the seemingly small increase in slope from 2 to 17 resulted in a reduction of roughly 107 in the percolation amount# This should also )e an option "orth considering in improving the performance of the containment system# .ncreasing the amount of vegetation seemed to have negliga)le effects and thus should pro)a)ly )e considered only as an aesthetic option in the construction of this type of landfill#

Part 3
3.1 EPA C AP PER"ORMANCE RE#UIREMENT

>ection ;#1#2 and Ta)le ;#1 in the EP, *est Practices guideline states that the re9uired cap performance has to )e such that @the design seepage rate of the cap does not e/ceed 817 of the design seepage rate of the landfill ()asal! linerA#

/ig re 1-0 Comparison o! cap seepage and 4asal liner seepage !or &ris4ane

/ig re 1.0 Comparison o! cap seepage and 4asal liner seepage !or #erth

/ig re 170 Comparison o! cap seepage and 4asal liner seepage !or 2el4o rne

&rom the above figures, it can be seen that the design seepage rate for the top layer is much greater than the seepage rate of landfill liner, much less 75% of it. This means that all three sites are not meeting the required performance from the Best ractice guideline. !ost of the "ater that lea#s through the cap is drained a"ay by the leachate collection layer, therefore the lea#age through the base liner is very small compared to the cap lea#age. .n this landfill model "here the ground "ater is "ell )elo" the )ase liner$ the only "ater input to the cell is from precipitation$ and that has to )e input through the cap# Even if the leachate collection system completely fails$ the base liner seepage is equal to the cap seepage, the cap seepage then "ill only go as lo" as %&&% of the base liner seepage and not any lo"er. Therefore in this landfill system design, it is not 'ust impractical but impossible to fulfil the requirement set by the ( ) regarding cap performance. erhaps this requirement "as intended for landfill systems "here the ground"ater is above the base liner.

3.2 MO I"IE CAP

ESIGN

, different cap design is used this time (refer to &ig# 2!$ "here there is an additional geomem)rane layer at the cap# The same analysis as in Part 1 "as run to this ne" design#

/ig re 170 Comparison o! cap seepage and 4asal liner seepage !or &ris4ane (modified)

/ig re 19: Comparison of cap seepage and basal liner seepage for Perth (modified)

/ig re 20: Comparison of cap seepage and basal liner seepage for Melbourne (modified)

,s e/pected$ for the modified model, the seepage rate of the cap still e*ceeds 75% of the design seepage rate of the landfill liner. +o"ever the seepage through the cap has dramatically decreased due to the addition of the geomembrane. &igures 21 to 2% )elo" sho"s the percolation through the cap from the original model and compares it "ith the modified model# (vidently, the added geomembrane decreased the cap seepage by , to - orders of magnitude. .hat is even more interesting is that "ith the ne" design, the seepage through the cap for Brisbane is less than erth and !elbourne, despite e*periencing much more rainfall. This confirms the earlier prediction that for the original design, only minor modifications had to be made to significantly improve the performance of the landfill containment system. ,nother advantage to having an e/tra geomem)rane at the cap is that it can also reduce any potential landfill gas lea0age through the cap#

/ig re 21: Comparison of cap percolation between original and modified model (Brisbane).

/ig re 22: Comparison of cap percolation between original and modified model (Perth).

/ig re 2(: Comparison of cap percolation between original and modified model (Melbourne).