Technical Committee on Geotechnics of Landfill Engineering

German Geotechnical Society (DGGT)

Technical Committee Sanitary Landfills

German Association for Water, Wastewater and Waste (DWA)
Association of Municipal Waste Management and City Cleaning (VKS in the VKU)

Technical Committee Landfill Technology

Toolkit Landfill Technology

Chapter 2.2

Principles of Bottom Barrier Systems

Erwin Gartung, Nrnberg, Germany

Hans-Gnter Ramke, Hxter, Germany

Reviewed by DGGT/DWA-VKS-Technical Committee

Landfill Technology and published in the internet
http://www.landfill-technology.info.

July 2009
Chapter 2.2 Table of Contents

Table of Contents
Page

1 Introduction 1

2 Requirements for Groundwater Protection 3

2.1 Criteria for Selection of Suitable Bottom Liner Systems 3
2.2 Standard Solution: Containment Landfill 5
2.3 Exemptions of Containment Landfill Systems 6
2.3.1 Case 1: Hydraulic Trap Landfill 6
2.3.2 Case 2: Attenuation and Dispersion 7

3 Overview of Bottom Liners 9

3.1 Sealing Materials 9
3.2 Functions of the Bottom Barrier System Components 11

4 Equivalency of Alternative Liner Systems 13

4.1 Concept for Demonstration of Equivalency 13
4.2 Phases of Landfill States 13
4.3 Actions 15

5 Calculation of Leakage and Mass Transfer through Liners 18

5.1 Calculation of Seepage Rate 18
5.2 Calculation of Advective Mass Transfer 21
5.3 Calculation of Diffusive Mass Transfer 23
5.4 Calculation of Combined Advective and Diffusive Mass Transfer 25

6 Criteria for the Selection of a Liner System 27

7 Examples of Requirements on Bottom Liner Systems 30

8 Bibliography 31
Chapter 2.2 1

1 Introduction
The bottom barrier system is supposed to protect the groundwater against pollution
caused by leachate constituents. It shall prevent or at least limit and control
contaminant migration, which is dominantly caused by seepage of leachate through
the landfill bottom liner (advection) and by diffusion of molecules and ions of potential
contaminants.

Bottom barrier systems consist of sealing elements and drainage elements. Three
main types of bottom barrier systems can be distinguished (Figure 1):

- Single liner systems

A single liner system consists of one sealing element (mineral or geo-

synthetic liner) and a drainage layer above, which collects and removes the
leachate.

Single liners are commonly used in Western Europe mainly for bottom
barriers of landfills for inert wastes; in other countries often a single liner
system is assessed to be sufficient as bottom barrier of landfills for non-
hazardous wastes.

- Composite liners

Composite liners consist of a mineral liner and a geosynthetic- or asphalt

sealing element. They enable the combination of the advantages of both
types of sealing elements and thereby minimize advection as well as
diffusion.

Composite liners are typically used for bottom barriers of landfills for non-
hazardous waste (domestic solid waste) and also for bottom barriers of
landfills for hazardous waste.

- Double liner systems

Double liner systems have two sets of liners and drains. The leachate
collection system is placed above the primary (upper) liner. Between the
primary (upper) liner and the secondary (lower) liner a secondary drainage
blanket is installed to serve as leak detector and to remove the leachate in
case of failure of the upper liner. Mineral or geosynthetic products can be
applied for liners and drainage layers.

Double liner systems are used in some countries (e. g. USA) for hazardous
waste landfills. They permit the observation of leakage rates. If the observed
leakage rate exceeds a certain value (response leakage rate) prescribed by
the supervising authority, actions must be taken.
2 Bottom Barrier Systems

Geosynthetic drainage mats are preferably used for the leak detection layer,
because of the minor thickness of geosynthetic drains and because some-
times leaks cannot easily be detected by gravel drainage blankets.

The decision on a barrier system at a particular site furthermore has to consider more
than one aspect:

- requirements of groundwater protection

- design of the whole bottom barrier system
- equivalency of different liner systems
- long-term performance of sealing elements
- producibility and costs.

The following sections in this chapter cover these general questions, while the next
chapters will discuss in detail the design, construction, quality management and
aftercare of liner systems with different sealing elements.

Figure 1: Principles of bottom barrier systems

Chapter 2.2 3

2 Requirements for Groundwater Protection

2.1 Criteria for Selection of Suitable Bottom Liner Systems
The bottom liner system and the geological barrier protect the groundwater from
pollution by leachate. In many European and North-American countries legal require-
ments on the geological barrier and on the bottom liner system are defined in
regulations.

As a general rule the requirements on the geological barrier and on the bottom liner
increase with rising hazards related to the types of waste to be disposed of. Landfills
for inert wastes like construction debris might be acceptable on ground not
considered a suitable geological barrier when it is provided with an adequate single
liner system. A geological barrier and an adequate bottom liner system are requested
for non-hazardous waste landfills, such as municipal solid waste landfills, while for a
hazardous waste landfill a truly suitable site with an impermeable geological barrier
and a composite liner are compulsory.

In case no national or regional detailed technical regulations for landfill bottom

barriers exist, the requirements for the bottom barrier and for the geological barrier
have to be defined specifically for each project according to the necessity of
groundwater protection.

Criteria to be considered here are:

- type and quantity of waste

- quantity and quality of leachate generation
- susceptibility of the groundwater to contamination
- importance of the groundwater.

Only careful analyses of local requirements can ensure a development of adequate

solutions for each particular site.

Two scenarios sketched to illustrate different answers which might be given to the
question concerning ground water protection by the bottom liner system are:

- Scenario 1: Small landfill in an arid climate

A small landfill for municipal waste serving 100,000 inhabitants in an arid

climate might handle 15,000 Mg of waste per year.

Assuming an annual rainfall of 100 mm/yr, the potential leachate generation

can be assessed to be quite small, concentrations of inorganic and organic
constituents are supposed to be low.

If the landfill is sited tens of meters above a groundwater table of a ground

water body of minor importance, and if the unsaturated zone consists of rock
4 Bottom Barrier Systems

or soil of low permeability, a simple compacted clay liner consisting of in

place remoulded, homogenised and re-compacted cohesive soil may serve
as an adequate bottom liner.

- Scenario 2: Large landfill near the coast

A large landfill for 1.5 million inhabitants, which not only accepts the
municipal waste but also industrial waste with some hazardous components,
has a high potential risk for environmental pollution.

Assuming an annual rainfall of 500 mm/yr with a dominating rainy season,

the leachate generation can be expected to reach a range of several hundred
millimetres per year. Inorganic and organic constituents in the leachate will
be high, and toxic components are likely.

Even if the bedrock or the subsoil are of low permeability, and an aquifer
below not very important, the basic principles of groundwater protection
require an engineered bottom liner, constructed under an efficient quality
assurance program.

Table 1 comprises the particular properties of the two scenarios. In the Examples -
Part III of the Landfill Technology Toolkit - more detailed explanations and examples
are given for selection criteria and solutions chosen.

Table 1: Comparison of two scenarios for selection of liner systems

Scenario1 Scenario 2
Type of Waste municipal municipal and industrial
Quantity of Waste low high
Leachate Quantity low high
Leachate Composition low concentrations highly loaded, polluted
Geological Barrier good up to nearly perfect
Groundwater Layer unimportant or of minor importance
Bottom Liner re-compacted cohesive soil engineered bottom liner

With respect to barrier functions three different strategies were developed for bottom
barrier systems in the past:

- containment landfills
- hydraulic trap landfills
- attenuation and dispersion landfills.
Chapter 2.2 5

Approaches to, advantages, disadvantages, and pre-conditions of these different

systems are discussed below, but it shall be clearly pointed out in advance that only
containment landfills are suitable mid- and long-term solutions for groundwater
protection.

Therefore in the sections and chapters following this comparison only containment
landfills will be discussed.

2.2 Standard Solution: Containment Landfill

The containment system has become the standard solution for the construction of
landfills. Above the geological barrier the bottom liner system is erected, and both
barriers together with the cover system shall ensure short- and long-term ground-
water protection by total containment (see Figure 2).

The containment landfill requires technical know-how, adequate construction

material, and more investment capital than a landfill system without a bottom liner.
Therefore the construction of a containment landfill often means a considerable
challenge for a developing or an emerging country.

Nevertheless, in most cases the containment type landfill has to be the first choice,
because only the use and interplay of sealing and drainage elements ensure
complete leachate collection and in consequence comprehensive groundwater
protection. This is demonstrated by Scenario 2, where an engineered bottom liner
installed above a geological barrier is the only reasonable solution.

But apart from this advantage the consequence of the total containment strategy is
the concentration of the leachate, collected by the leachate collection system, at one
location where it has to undergo treatment. Quantity and quality of leachate are often
underestimated, and sometimes it can be observed that untreated leachate is
discharged directly into rivers or other bodies of surface water or that leachate is
seeping into the ground in an uncontrolled manner.

It needs no explanation, that such practices may be more dangerous than if the
leachate would migrate into the ground in an evenly spread manner at the bottom of
a landfill without sealing liner. To avoid the resulting problems leachate management
strategies have to be developed and treatment plants must be designed and
operated.
6 Bottom Barrier Systems

Figure 2: Scheme of a containment landfill

2.3 Exemptions of Containment Landfill Systems

2.3.1 Case 1: Hydraulic Trap Landfill
In a hydro-geologically favourable situation an existing pit in a cohesive soil
(preferably a natural clay deposit) can be used as a waste disposal site, according to
the concept of a hydraulic trap landfill (see Figure 3). When the potentiometric
surface of the ground water of the aquifer below the aquitard is located at a higher
elevation than the surface of the leachate in the collection system, no advective
transport of contaminants will occur because the flow caused by the hydraulic
gradient is directed towards the landfill. Such a geo-hydraulic situation no advective
migration and retarded diffusive migration of contaminants - is advantageous.

However, prerequisites of the system are: very low hydraulic conductivity of the
cohesive soil, no cracks or other discrete flow paths, sufficient thickness of the clay
deposit (aquitard) to prevent uplift and a sufficient head difference between the po-
tentiometric surface of the ground water and the leachate is warranted permanently.

In order to verify the latter condition, possible fluctuations of the groundwater table
must be known and the leachate collection system must function reliably. Careful
maintenance and control of the leachate collection system is mandatory to keep the
leachate head at the design level. Permanent pumping may be necessary to keep the
leachate level low, which has to be considered a serious disadvantage because of
current cost and needs for maintenance. Monitoring of the ground water table and
the leachate level are required at such a landfill. This example demonstrates that the
ground water conditions at the site, the bottom liner and the leachate collection
system interact and have to be regarded holistically.

Detailed descriptions and calculations of hydraulic traps are shown by MNNICH,

1993. Advice on measures for improving the natural soil is given in Chapter 2.2.
Chapter 2.2 7

Figure 3: Scheme of a hydraulic trap landfill

2.3.2 Case 2: Attenuation and Dispersion

In the last years the outdated concept of attenuation and dispersion landfills is
under discussion again. The concept considers effects on the level of contamination
by attenuation processes in the unsaturated soil zone below a landfill, and by
dispersion processes in the groundwater zone (see Figure 4).

According to ALLEN, 2003 natural attenuation barriers may be defined as:

Low permeability clay- or organic-rich geological units (k < 10-6 m/s), which can
perform the function of an attenuating layer, enabling leachate to percolate
slowly downward, simultaneously undergoing attenuation by biodegradation,
filtration, sorption and ion exchange processes with the clays in the unit.

After passing the unsaturated zone, the concentration of the remaining leachate
constituents decreases further due to dilution in groundwater and due to dispersion
processes. Provided the subsoil has a suitable permeability and an adequate
attenuation capacity, this concept seems to have the advantage, that no leachate
collection system and in consequence no leachate treatment facilities would be
necessary. In practice it is hardly possible to adjust the permeability of a bottom liner
to the requirements of leachate flow, and the influence of attenuation processes is
often overestimated.

From the point of view of groundwater protection the attenuation and dispersion
concept is acceptable only under the circumstances described by Scenario 1. Here
the geological and hydrogeological conditions are suitable, and in combination with
the other factors described, this may allow to reduce the technical requirements for
the bottom liner system and to accept the controlled release of a small amount of
leachate. But even in this case a leachate collection system and a certain effort for
leachate management are required.
8 Bottom Barrier Systems

Figure 4: Scheme of an attenuation and dispersion landfill

Chapter 2.2 9

3 Overview of Bottom Liners

3.1 Sealing Materials
For more than three decades of bottom liner construction emphasis was placed on
developing seals impervious to leachate with reliable long-term resistance against the
pertinent physical, chemical and biological influences at the landfill bottom.

In general, it can be differentiated between porous and nonporous sealing materials.

Mineral liners commonly consist of natural granular products, so they are porous;
they are designed for very low towards zero hydraulic conductivity. Nonporous
bottom liners consist of artificial products, their hydraulic conductivity is practically
zero.

- Compacted Clay Liners (CCL)

The materials most commonly used for compacted clay liner construction are
natural cohesive soils. Their properties with respect to sealing function and to
shear strength depend on their composition (grain size distribution, mineral
constituents) and on their state (density, void ratio, water content). The
amount and the type of clay minerals present is of particular importance. The
term Compacted Clay Liner (CCL) is used for all mineral liners which
predominantly consist of fine grained soils like clays, silty clays and clayey
silts.

- Alternative mineral liners, e. g. compacted mixed in plant (or mixed in place)

Coarse Grained Mineral Liners (CGL)

Clayey soil is a natural product which sometimes is not available at the site or
in the vicinity where a landfill has to be constructed. In such situations
alternative liner material has to be employed. If a mineral bottom liner is
compulsory, then it may be necessary to compose mineral liners of coarser
material with enough fines to fill the voids in order to achieve a very low
hydraulic conductivity.

Well graded coarse grained soils may serve as mineral liners, provided they
are homogeneous, well compacted and contain a sufficient amount of fines
(silt- and clay size particles) to achieve the required very low hydraulic
conductivity.

In general, for engineered coarse grained mineral liners it is necessary, to

add the required fraction of fines, mostly bentonite, and to mix the sealing
material in place or in plant. The required quality and homogeneity of the
mineral liner can be achieved reliably by mixing in plant rather than by mixing
in place. The term Compacted Mixed in Plant (or mixed in place) Coarse
Grained Mineral Liner (CGL) is used for this type of seal.
10 Bottom Barrier Systems

- Geosynthetic Barriers

A geosynthetic barrier is a low-permeability geosynthetic material, used in

geotechnical and civil engineering with the purpose of reducing or preventing
the flow through the construction (DIN EN ISO 10318, 2005).

The term geosynthetic barrier comprises polymeric geosynthetic barriers,

bituminous geosynthetic barriers and clay geosynthetic barriers, the latter
commonly known as geosynthetic clay liners (GCL).

Polymeric geosynthetic barriers and bituminous geosynthetic barriers are

known under the common term geomembrane, which was used in the
1990s and is still in common use. It was originally devised to replace pre-
vious imprecise terms such as pond liners and flexible membrane liners
(FML).

For convenience, and in agreement with current engineering practice, the

term geomembrane will be used here throughout for HDPE (high density
polyethylene) polymeric geosynthetic barriers, which are assessed to be the
most suitable geomembranes for landfill bottom liners. Bituminous geo-
synthetic barriers do not meet the requirements for bottom liner systems in
landfills and will not be discussed.

Geosynthetic clay liners (GCL) are geocomposites consisting of geo-

synthetics and bentonite. The bentonite layer which functions as the sealing
element when it assumes a hydrated state, is approximately 6 10 mm thick.
The bentonite is sandwiched between two geotextiles. The three layers of the
geocomposite are connected by stitching, needle punching or gluing. Geo-
synthetic clay liners are typically employed for cover systems rather than for
bottom liners.

- Asphalt Liners

Asphalt, concrete and bitumen have been used in hydraulic engineering very
successfully for a long time to serve sealing purposes, e. g. as impervious
cores or surface seals of dams and for reservoir linings.

Similarly, in areas where clayey soils are not available, asphalt liners have
been used successfully for bottom barrier systems of domestic waste land-
fills. In Switzerland and in Germany asphalt is considered an established
alternative liner material in landfill engineering.

The subsequent Chapters will present detailed descriptions of these different sealing
products, beginning with the particular properties, continuing with advice on construc-
tion, and finally explaining necessary measures of quality assurance.
Chapter 2.2 11

3.2 Functions of the Bottom Barrier System Components

Figure 5 shows a composite liner with a mineral liner (CCL) and a geomembrane, as
well as the functional layers below and above the seal as an example. The functions
and requirements of the elements described are to be seen accordingly.

Figure 5: Scheme of a composite bottom liner system

The functions of the different elements and particular requirements are as follows:

- Mineral liner (mineral sealing layer)

The mineral sealing layer minimises the flow of leachate and advective
transport of contaminants through the bottom of the landfill.

The chemical concentration gradient between the top and the bottom of the
sealing layer is inversely proportional to the thickness of the mineral liner.
Accordingly the thickness and the apparent diffusion coefficient of the mineral
liner control the diffusion of contaminants.

Mineral liners shall have a sufficient content of clay minerals to facilitate

absorption of contaminants (attenuation capacity), e. g. for heavy metal ions.

The liner materials must be resistant to the chemical and the biological
constituents of leachate, to internal and to external erosion. Furthermore they
should have a low susceptibility to cracking initiated by differential
settlements and by shrinking.
12 Bottom Barrier Systems

- Geomembrane (polymeric geosynthetic barrier)

The geomembrane prevents leakage through the landfill bottom and diffusion
of inorganic (polar) constituents of leachate. Geomembranes must be long-
term resistant to all chemical constituents of leachate at the temperatures to
be expected at the bottom of a landfill. They must be sufficiently robust
against mechanical actions during and after installation. Their stress-strain
behaviour ought to be ductile and tolerate anticipated differential settlements
without rupture. They shall be resistant to stress cracking.

- Interface between the sealing layers

Intimate contact between the geomembrane and the mineral liner is to be

achieved at the interface to prevent lateral spread of leachate at perforations
of the geomembrane and also to prevent lateral movement of organic
contaminants passing through the geomembrane by diffusion.

The composite sealing effect of geomembrane and mineral liner depends on

the quality of the interface. The surface of the mineral liner (CCL) has to be
smooth, fine-grained, and the geomembrane must be installed without any
waves or voids trapped between it and the CCL surface.

- Protective layer

The protective layer prevents puncturing of the geomembrane under point

loads caused by drainage stone. Protective layers may consist of sand
and/or of a suitable geotextile.

- Drainage layer

The drainage layer is part of the leachate collection system, thereby

preventing the build-up of leachate head above the sealing system. The
leachate collection system comprises the drainage layer, perforated leachate
collection pipes, manholes and conduction pipes.

- Transitional layer

Depending on the design and the types of waste disposed of, a transitional
layer may be required. It serves as a filter function to prevent fine-grained
waste from blocking the drainage material.

In the construction phase or at the start of the operation phase, it can prevent
frost from penetrating the mineral sealing layer. Furthermore the temperature
gradient in the mineral sealing layer can be reduced by provision of a suitable
transitional layer.
Chapter 2.2 13

4 Equivalency of Alternative Liner Systems

4.1 Concept for Demonstration of Equivalency
For the comparison of the efficiency of different liner systems criteria are needed.
The comparison of the performance of the standard system and an alternative
system encompasses aspects of sealing efficiency, mechanical resistance, durability
and constructability.

A general concept for demonstration of equivalency was developed by the German

Institute for Structural Engineering (DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FR BAUTECHNIK, DIBT,
1995). The main ideas of this concept shall be summarised in this section.

Under the influence of specified hydraulic, chemical, physical and mechanical actions
the performance of the standard sealing system, serving as a reference with well
defined material properties to resist these actions, is known. The material properties
of the alternative system in question have to be determined by testing. With
characteristic values of the material properties thus determined, the performance of
the alternative system has to be computed with the same analytical models as used
for the determination of the performance of the standard system. The results can
then be compared.

Table 2 compiles the relevant required performances, properties and actions to be

accounted for. The actions and the material resistance considered for the analyses,
are varying with time, they refer to different phases in the service life of the landfill.
The phases are described in section 4.2.

4.2 Phases of Landfill States

In Phase 0 the bottom liner system is under construction. In Phase I the bottom liner
may be covered by the protecting layer and/or by the leachate collection drainage
blanket. It is exposed to weather, self weight and probably to live loads of construc-
tion equipment.

In Phase II the static loading increases with placement of waste. Settlements occur,
the flow and hydraulic head of leachate is high. The concentration of chemical and
biological substances in the leachate is high. Temperatures are elevated. The bottom
liner system must function properly. Phase II ends after the cease of landfill
operations and completion of the capping system.
14 Bottom Barrier Systems

Table 2: Relevant performance characteristics of sealing systems in landfills

Performance Properties Actions

Sealing efficiency Advection - hydraulic gradient
- time until break through - contaminant
- rate of flow - temperature

Diffusion - concentration gradient

- induction time - contaminant
- rate of permeation - temperature

Mechanical Performance under loads Mechanical actions

resistance - stability - settlement deformations
- deformation - forces due to deformations
- hydraulic resistance - surcharge loads
- traffic loads
- pore water pressures
- special loading

Hydraulic actions
- seepage forces
Durability Durability under chemical influence Chemical actions
- leachate
- aggressive liquids
- gases

Durability under physical influences Physical actions

- temperatures
- moisture
- UV-radiation

Constructability Constructability
- Mechanical robustness
- Sensitivity to weather
- Properties under built-in conditions
- Connections and protrusions
- Quality testing possible
- Repair possible
Chapter 2.2 15

Table 3: Phases of landfill states

Phase State
0 Bottom liner system under construction
I Bottom liner system completed before placement of waste
Bottom liner system during operation of landfill
II
Capping system under construction
IIIa Liner systems in early post closure phase
IIIb Liner systems in late post closure phase

In Phase IIIa the flow of leachate decreases due to the sealing effect of the capping
system. Deformations of the liners take place due to time dependent settlements.
The cover system is exposed to precipitation and other weather features. Bottom
liner and capping systems must function properly.

Long time after closure of the landfill, in Phase IIIb, it has to be anticipated that some
of the elements of the lining systems suffer from ageing effects and do not perform
as well as in Phase IIIa, e. g. clogging of drainage lines, increasing leak rates of seals
etc. because of partial failure of geosynthetics and geomembranes. This may lead to
an increase in leachate head at the bottom of the landfill.

4.3 Actions
The hydraulic, chemical, physical, biological and mechanical influences acting upon
the sealing system in question may be site specific, e. g. in case of certain hazardous
waste landfills where special chemicals dominate, or in case of landfills for industrial
residues like some kinds of slag, which can develop very high temperatures. Such
particularities require special attention.

For the normal case, the actions to be assessed for performance comparison have
been established and can be drawn from the literature (DIBt, 1995). The actions
depend on the phase during the lifetime of the landfill. The performance of the liner
has to be examined for all phases. Furthermore, it is distinguished between
permanent actions, temporary variable actions and exceptional actions. The scheme,
in which the actions are presented, is demonstrated for bottom liner systems on
Table 4 as an example which does not contain all detailed data. If such data are
requested they may be obtained from the literature (DIBt, 1995).
16 Bottom Barrier Systems

Table 4: Schematic overview of relevant influences acting upon the bottom

liner of landfills (according to DIBt, 1995)
Phase 0 I II IIIa IIIb
Action
Leachate - - Leachate type according to landfill category
chemistry
Aggressive - - Exceptional cases according -
chemicals to landfill category
Biologic - Variable:
influences Micro-organisms, fungi, plants, animals
Temperature - - Permanent: 10 - 25C (30 C) Permanent:
Exceptional case: 40C 40C
Weather Variable: Variable: -
UV-radiation, wind, rain
temperature -20 C to +60 C
Water Variable:
content Pertinent range of water content respective matric suction
change
Mechanical Permanent: Permanent: Permanent:
action Self weight Self weight of Self weight of bottom- and
liners, cover liner-systems, weight
increasing of waste (inclination), any
weight of live loads, vegetation etc.,
waste (incli- deformations from
nation), settlements
deformations
from settle-
ments
Variable: Variable: Variable: Variable:
Transports, Transports for hydraulic Hydraulic actions
construction, waste actions,
hydraulic delivery, dynamic
actions, hydraulic loads due to
dynamic actions, compaction of
loads due to dynamic waste
compaction, loads due to Exceptional case:
wind-loads compaction of Increased hydraulic actions
waste, wind-
loads
Hydraulic - p: 3 cm p: 3 cm p: 30 cm
action v: --- v: 30 cm v: 100 cm
e: 30 cm e: 100 cm e: 500 cm
p: permanent leachate head, v: variable leachate head, e: exceptional leachate head
Chapter 2.2 17

It may be interesting to look at some actions for example. The hydraulic actions of
the leachate are characterised as follows. In phase II under permanent conditions p:
the head of leachate is assumed at 3 cm. The case of temporary variable conditions
v: has not to be considered here. Under exceptional conditions e: the leachate head
is 30 cm. In phase IIIa the leachate head is still 3 cm for permanent conditions, it is
30 cm for temporary variable conditions and 100 cm under exceptional conditions.
This means, that for normal operating conditions it is assumed that the leachate
collection system is functioning properly. Only in phase IIIb partial malfunctioning of
the leachate collection system is assumed which causes a leachate head of 30 cm to
build up under permanent conditions. The leachate head is 100 cm under temporary
variable conditions and 500 cm under exceptional conditions.

In the sense of chemical influences acting upon the bottom liner, the constituents of
leachate are specified for landfill categories I, II and III in the guide lines (DIBt, 1995).
Among the 26 parameters specified, the chloride concentration is of particular
interest, because chloride ions are very mobile and easy to trace, so the diffusion of
chloride through mineral liners is taken as a reference scale for the assessment of
the capability of mineral liners to retard diffusion. For the purpose of comparing the
sealing performance of alternative mineral liners with standard compacted clay liners,
in the diffusion computation the concentration of chloride ions in the leachate is
specified as 5,000 mg/l in landfill category I (inert waste), 20,000 mg/l in landfill
category II (municipal waste) and 40,000 mg/l in landfill category III (hazardous
waste).

For all actions indicated in Table 4 and for pertinent combinations of actions, e. g.
hydraulic head of leachate, chemistry and elevated temperature occurring simultane-
ously, with the material properties of the alternative mineral liner, the performance
has to be analysed.

For example, the rate of seepage flow va and the break through time t at which
leachate will appear at the lower side of the mineral liner have to be computed for all
the phases and conditions of actions to be compared with the requirements. The
influence of diffusive mass flux has to be analysed for chloride as indicative species
of contaminants.
18 Bottom Barrier Systems

5 Calculation of Leakage and Mass Transfer through Liners

5.1 Calculation of Seepage Rate
Advective and diffusive transports are the dominating mechanisms for the migration
of contaminants through a mineral liner. In many cases advection is the most
important process, and for comparative studies of different liner systems a calculation
of the rate of seepage through the liner may be appropriate.

Under the assumption of homogeneously distributed hydraulic conductivity (no

cracks, no coarse grained pervious lenses or other preferential flow paths), the
leakage through a mineral bottom liner can be calculated as the seepage rate using
DARCYS law:

vz = kz i (1)

where

vz = specific discharge in the z-direction (DARCYs seepage velocity) [m/s]

kz = saturated hydraulic conductivity in the z-direction (vertical flow) [m/s]
i = hydraulic gradient [-]

The hydraulic conductivity of the sealing layer has to be determined by laboratory

and/or field suitability testing. The hydraulic gradient is the hydraulic head difference
between the top and the bottom of the liner, divided by the thickness of the liner.
Figure 6 illustrates the assumptions of the one dimensional model for advective flow
under steady state and homogeneous conditions.

a Ct drainage layer

mineral sealing layer

dm

vz, Ja

Figure 6: One dimensional model of advective flow through a bottom liner

The mineral sealing layer is assumed to be saturated the subsoil below the liner to be
unsaturated. The hydraulic gradient is:

a + dm
i= (2)
dm
where

a = saturated thickness above the liner [m]

dm = thickness of the mineral liner [m]
Chapter 2.2 19

These standard assumptions neglect the matrix potential (suction) caused by the
unsaturated soil layer below the bottom of the liner, and the hydraulic losses in the
drainage layer which are unimportant.

For practical reasons it is recommended to present the computed seepage rates in

the dimension of height, to compare them directly with the precipitation or the net
recharge. This requires the conversion of the unit of DARCYs velocity [m/s] to the unit
of the annual height [mm/a].

A practical example demonstrates the calculation:

a + dm
La = k z 86400 365 1000 =
dm
(3)
9 0.03 + 0.50
= 1 10 86400 365 1000 = 33.4 mm / a
0.50
where

La = annual height of seepage through the liner [mm/a]

This example with typical values of hydraulic conductivity, thickness of the mineral
liner and leachate head leads to an annual height of seepage of about 33 mm/a,
approximately a tenth of the groundwater recharge in Western Europe.
Figure 7 presents the relationship between the annual height of seepage and the
hydraulic conductivity under the assumptions of the example above.

10000
Annual Leakage Rate [mm/a]

1000

100

10

0
1.0E-11 1.0E-10 1.0E-09 1.0E-08 1.0E-07
Hydraulic Conductivity [m/s]

Figure 7: Annual seepage rate versus hydraulic conductivity of a

mineral sealing layer (hydraulic gradient i = 1.06)
20 Bottom Barrier Systems

The leakage through liners with a hydraulic conductivity less than kf 110-10 m/s can
be neglected, but beyond a conductivity of kf 110-8 m/s the leakage rate reaches
more than 330 mm/a, which is in the range of groundwater recharge in many humid
areas. Therefore the question arises, whether mineral liners with a hydraulic
conductivity higher than kf 110-9 m/s do have any barrier effect. But even less good
liners with a relatively high hydraulic conductivity can reduce the leakage rate
significantly in combination with a drainage layer. This is due to transient and
preferential flow of leachate above the liner. Leachate generation in the landfill body
and leachate recharge at the top of a drainage layer or directly at the top of the liner
is neither temporally steady nor spatially uniformly distributed.

Leachate generation depends not only on the climatic conditions, but also on storage
and retention processes, consolidation effects, and degradation processes in the
landfill body. This mix of influences under humid climates often leads to periods with
nearly no leachate discharge (in summer times), while leachate discharge is signifi-
cantly increased in the winter period. This mid-term variation is overlapped by short-
term events, which are reactions to strong rainfalls.

Preferential flow is inevitable in landfill bodies of municipal waste due to the

inhomogeneity of the landfill body, which is caused both by the different waste
components and by the random distribution. The results are drain channels of
higher permeability in the landfill body, which collect and discharge the leachate.

The result of both effects is an inhomogeneous, time variable access of leachate to

the drainage system. A liner even an insufficient mineral layer prevents the fast
vertical percolation, and the splashes are collected and discharged by the drainage
system.

The practical consequence of these considerations must not be that mineral liners
can be constructed with low quality, but the consequence has to be that it is always
worth to build a liner if a containment system shall be installed even if the
preconditions at the particular site are not the best to ensure a mineral sealing layer
with a hydraulic conductivity below kf 110-9 m/s. The bottom liner system will partly
work in combination with the drainage layer above.

Finally it may be mentioned that, in soils with very low hydraulic conductivity as in
landfill liners, thermal gradients, chemical concentration gradients and electrical
gradients (the latter may exist due to differences in self potential of minerals) can
have an influence on the liquid flow through pores (MITCHELL/SOGA, 2005). On the
other hand it must be considered, that field tests and laboratory tests of hydraulic
conductivity of mineral liners at many landfill sites have shown, that the field value
can be up to ten times higher than the laboratory value.

Altogether DARCYS formula may not be sufficient to predict leakage accurately for
field conditions, however it is a useful tool for assessment of local consequences and
for comparative parametric studies as in case of the assessment of equivalency.
Chapter 2.2 21

5.2 Calculation of Advective Mass Transfer

Advective mass transfer means the transport of solutes through a liner by seepage.
In most soils and aquifers this is the most important transport mechanism, molecular
diffusion is only of importance in natural soils and artificial mineral liners of low
hydraulic conductivity. In the following the mass discharge rates caused by advection
and by diffusion shall be compared.

The calculation of the advective mass transfer is based on the calculation of the
specific discharge (Equation (1)):

Ja = vz Ct (4)

where

Ja = mass discharge rate due to advection [g/m2/s]

Ct = solute concentration above liner (at the top) [g/m3]

When combining the advective mass transfer with dispersion effects and diffusive
mass transfer the actual fluid velocity is used instead of DARCYs seepage velocity:

va = vf / ne (5)

where

vf = specific discharge in any direction (DARCYs velocity) [m/s]

va = actual fluid velocity [m/s]
ne = effective porosity [-]

The effective porosity is the volume of the interconnected pores, through which water
actually moves, related to the total volume. Using the actual velocity Equation 4
results in

Ja = va ne Ct (6)

The actual velocity is necessary for the determination of the travel or transit time,
which is understood as the average duration of the passage of both water and
contaminant particles through the mineral liner.

tm = dm / va (7)

where

tm = transit time of solutes for passing the mineral liner [s]

dm = thickness of the mineral liner [-]

Transit time is equal to the breakthrough time, which describes the first appearance
of solutes below the liner, if diffusion and dispersion effects can be neglected.
22 Bottom Barrier Systems

For a numerical example the scenario given in section 5.1 shall be used. In addition
to the data used there the effective porosity and the concentration of a solute above
the liner must be quantified.

The advective mass discharge rate is

y a + dm
Ja = v z C t = k z Ct =
dm
(8)
9 0.03 + 0.50 g g
= 1 10 10,000 = 1.06 10 5 2 = 334 2
0.50 m s m a
with

vz = 1.06 10-9 m/s

Ct = 10,000 g/m3

Transient time is calculated with the actual fluid velocity using equation 5:

d d 0.50
tm = m = m =
va vz 1.06 10 9 (9)
ne 0 .1
= 47,169,811 s = 546 d
with

ne = 0.1 [-]

The effective porosity is smaller than the total porosity because soil channels with
dead end pores do not contribute to ne.

Table 5 summarises the influence of the hydraulic conductivity on the annual

seepage rate, the advective discharge rate and the transit time. It is obvious, that a
change of the hydraulic conductivity of one decimal power changes the related
parameters in the same magnitude. Furthermore Table 5 shows again, that mineral
liners with higher permeability are much less effective than a quite impervious liner
with a hydraulic conductivity less than 10-9 m/s.

Table 5: Influence of hydraulic conductivity on advective discharge rate and

transit time

kv = 1 10-7 m/s kv = 1 10-8 m/s kv = 1 10-9 m/s kv = 1 10-10 m/s

vz 3340 mm/a 334 mm/a 33.4 mm/a 3.34 mm/a
Ja 33400 g/m2/a 3340 g/m2/a 334 g/m2/a 33.4 g/m2/a
tm 5.5 d 55 d 546 d 5460 d
Chapter 2.2 23

5.3 Calculation of Diffusive Mass Transfer

If advective flow can be neglected, e.g. when the hydraulic gradient is near to zero or
the hydraulic conductivity is very low, diffusive transfer becomes important.

Figure 8 describes the situation of steady state conditions. The saturated depth
above the liner shall be negligible, the concentration of a particular solute above the
liner is C(top), the concentration below the liner is C(bottom).

Ct
ya drainage layer

mineral sealing layer

dm
Cb Jd saturated groundwater layer

Figure 8: One dimensional model of diffusive transfer through a bottom liner

The diffusive mass discharge rate depends on the effective diffusion coefficient and
the concentration gradient; diffusive mass transfer occurs in the whole pore volume:

c C Cb
Jd = n D eff = n D eff t (10)
x dm
where

Jd = mass discharge rate due to diffusion [g/m2/s]

n = total porosity (moisture content at saturation) [-]
Deff = effective diffusion coefficient [m2/s]
Ct = solute concentration above liner (at the top) [g/m3]
Cb = solute concentration below liner (at the bottom) [g/m3]

The effective diffusion coefficient results from the diffusion coefficient of a particular
solute under consideration of interference in pores of soils:

D eff = D 0 (11)
where

D0 = diffusion coefficient [m2/s]

= solute tortuosity factor [-]

In the following example some typical values will be used for ions like chloride in clay
to calculate the diffusive coefficients.
24 Bottom Barrier Systems

The analytical solutions of the differential equations describing the combined

advective and diffusive mass transfer, and many numerical models as well, consider
only one value for the porosity. Therefore the effective coefficient of diffusion, which
will be used for the calculation of the combined processes is standardised to the
effective porosity.

Assuming that solutes migrating through the mineral liner are removed by ground-
water immediately (Cb = 0), and using the same values for soil, solute and geometry
parameters like in the example above, the diffusive mass discharge rate is

c C Cb C Cb
Jd = n D eff = n D0 t = n e D *eff t =
x dm dm
n C Cb
= ne D0 t
ne dm
(12)
0. 4 10,000 0 g
= 0 .1 0 .1 2 10 9 = 0.1 0.8 10 9 20,000 2 =
0 .1 0.50 m s
g g
= 1.6 10 6 2 = 50.5 2
m s m a
where

Deff* = standardised effective diffusion coefficient [m2/s]

with

= 0.1 [-]
D0 = 2.010-9 m2/s
D*eff = 0.810-9 m2/s

Comparing the advective and diffusive mass transfer rates (see Table 5) it can be
seen, that diffusion becomes an important process in mineral liners with a hydraulic
conductivity in a range of 10-10 m/s and less. Then the absolute values of the diffusive
and of the advective mass discharge rate are in the same order of magnitude.
Chapter 2.2 25

5.4 Calculation of Combined Advective and Diffusive Mass Transfer

Hardly any situation in practice allows the exclusion of advective transfer, and
diffusive transfer can only be neglected when the hydraulic conductivity is compara-
tively high.

Combining the advective and diffusive processes for modelling transport phenomena,
dispersion has to be considered, and, if necessary, attenuation processes like
adsorption and decay might be added. The resulting solute transport equation is a
partial differential equation, which has some analytical solutions for simple cases.
Well-known analytical solutions describe the one-dimensional contaminant transport
in dependence of time over the profile depth for instantaneous and permanent
sources of contamination (see SCHNOOR, 1996), but they postulate theoretically an
infinite depth of the soil. For practical reasons the use of a numerical model like
HYDRUS 1-D is often recommendable, which allows to examine the situation described
above, where solute concentration directly below the liner is zero, which might occur
due to removal of the solutes by groundwater.

The calculations performed with HYDRUS 1-D used the parameters of the examples
above, in addition a longitudinal dispersivity (L = 1 cm) was defined. Solute
concentration was equal to zero at the beginning and then permanent (10,000 mg/l)
at the top of the liner and zero at its bottom. Figure 9 describes the development of
solute concentration in different depths of the liner in dependence of time, Figure 10
the distribution of solute concentration over the depth of the liner at 1 and 10 years
for a hydraulic conductivity of kz = 1 10-9 m/s. It can be seen that the final
distribution of the pollutant (steady state) is achieved after app. three years (Fig.
5.4) and that advection is influencing the shape of concentration distribution over the
profile (non-linear and shifted to top).

In Table 6 the total discharge rates of advection and diffusion (Jtotal) are compiled in
dependence of hydraulic conductivity of the mineral liner. Comparison with the values
of the advective mass discharge rate referring to the same hydraulic conductivity
proves again, that diffusion is negligible at higher permeability. But for low hydraulic
conductivities the combined calculation of diffusion, advection, and inevitable
dispersion, is necessary, to achieve true results.

Table 6: Total discharge rates of advection and diffusion in dependence of

hydraulic conductivity of the mineral liner

kv = 1 10-7 m/s kv = 1 10-8 m/s kv = 1 10-9 m/s kv = 1 10-10 m/s

Ja 33400 g/m2/a 3340 g/m2/a 334 g/m2/a 33.4 g/m2/a
Jtotal 9.16 mg/cm2/d 0.916 mg/cm2/d 0.0918 mg/cm2/d 0.0191 mg/cm2/d
Jtotal 33434 g/m2/a 3343 g/m2/a 335 g/m2/a 69.7 g/m2/a
26 Bottom Barrier Systems

10000

9000

8000
Concentration [mg/l]

7000

6000

5000

4000

3000 z = - 10 cm
z = - 20 cm
2000 z = - 30 cm
z = - 40 cm
1000 z = - 45 cm

0
0 365 730 1095 1460 1825
Time [days]

Figure 9: Development of solute concentration in different depth of the liner

10000

9000

8000
Concentration [mg/l]

7000

6000

5000

4000 t = 365 d
3000 t = 3650 d

2000

1000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50
Profile Depth Profile [cm]

Figure 10: Distribution of solute concentration over the depth of the liner
at 1 and 10 years
Chapter 2.2 27

6 Criteria for the Selection of a Liner System

The selection of a liner system and in particular of the lining elements is determined
by three major aspects:

- requirements of groundwater protection

- producibility
- costs.

The development of site related groundwater protection requirements on liner

systems, and the related tools of calculation are described above. The term
producibility comprises the complexity of construction, the availability of construc-
tion materials, and local experience in construction.

In the following these considerations shall be explained by an example of a landfill in

the Middle East. The landfill described had to be designed for a large city in a very
arid climate, the site selected showed cohesive soils at the surface and a deep
aquifer. In Table 7 assessments of the adequacy of different liner systems for this
landfill are compared. The liner systems taken into consideration are single liner
systems, the differences consist only in the sealing element. The system improved
profiling of subsoil means an in place remoulded, homogenised and re-compacted
clay liner, the adapted mineral liner consists of one lift of local cohesive material,
covered with one lift of compacted clay. All the other systems are conventional ones.

Table 7: Adequacy of different liner systems for a landfill in a Middle East country
Complexity of

Experience in
Raw Material
Availability of
Construction

Construction
Permeability

Long-term
Behaviour
Hydraulic

Costs
Local

Alternative/
Criteria

Improved Profiling of
-- -- 0 ++ ++ ++
Subsoil (definition)
Adapted mineral
0/- 0 - ++ + ++
Liner System
Mineral Liner System 0 0 - + 0 0
Geomembrane Liner
++ +/++ 0 - 0 +
System (HDPE)
Geosynthetic Clay
++ 0 + - 0 0
Liner
Asphalt Liner System ++ ++ + ++ + -
++: very good; +: good; 0: fair; -: insufficient
28 Bottom Barrier Systems

The following reasons lead to the rating in the different criteria shown by Table 7:

- Hydraulic permeability

Hydraulic permeability better: degree of impermeability is the most

important parameter for the assessment of effectiveness of liner elements.
The suitability of the mineral liners increases with the number of lifts and the
quality of the raw material. Geomembranes, new bentonite mats (GCL) and
asphalt liners can be assessed as totally or nearly impermeable.

- Long-term behaviour

The criterion long-term behaviour considers a possible abrasion of the

sealing performance. Certificated Geomembranes and asphalt liners have a
good resistance against the chemical and biological actions, while the
hydraulic conductivity of GCL increases with time after placement. A clear
advantage of an asphalt layer is its high physical resistance against
penetration compared to geomembranes or bentonite mats (GCL).

The bentonite in GCLs might be displaced under differential loading and the
thickness of the bentonite reduced locally.

- Complexity of construction

The question of complexity of construction has to consider the local

conditions, especially the climate, apart from the general preconditions like
suitable machinery, experience and skill of workers, or aspects like
organisation of construction works.

A hot and dry climate creates no unusual difficulties for the construction of a
geosynthetic clay liner and of an asphalt liner, but pronounced difficulties
have to be considered for the construction of compacted clay liners and the
placement of geomembranes.

The placement of geomembranes requires dry conditions above 5 C (which

is normally easy to fulfil in most countries of the Middle East in spring,
summer and autumn). But the distribution of temperatures over the day (cold
in the morning, heat at noon) must be respected to avoid waves in the
geomembrane as a result of warming up after placement, and tensile
stresses caused by decreasing temperatures. Geomembranes are very
sensitive to changes in temperature due to their comparatively high
coefficient of thermal expansion.

The construction of compacted clay liners is more difficult in hot and dry
climates, because the suitable clayey soils require adequate conditioning
with controlled placement of water content, and they are susceptible to
Chapter 2.2 29

shrinking cracks caused by desiccation. The construction of a clay liner

without cracks and fissures is difficult, but can be possible. However, the
protection of the liner against desiccation for several weeks or months after
placement until the first waste layer is disposed of can hardly be guaranteed
during summer times in arid regions.

- Availability of construction material

The problem of construction material being available must not be underesti-

mated. In a very early stage of design the availability of suitable soil materials
in reasonable distances to the landfill site should be investigated. This
comprises natural clays as well as drainage materials, which both must meet
the particular requirements for construction materials in bottom liner systems.

In the example of Table 7 the subsoil at the site consisted of cohesive soils,
and clay pits were available within acceptable distance. This lead to the
favourable rating of mineral sealing layers for this criterion. Imports of geo-
synthetics are possible, but have been rated with a minus because local
(regional/national) availability is assessed as an advantage, import is consid-
ered a disadvantage. Asphalt components (split gravel, split, mineral filler,
bitumen) are available in all countries where asphalt roads are constructed.

- Local experience in construction

Local experience in earthworks exists in every country, and therefore

improved profiling of the subsoil is no problem, but the particular require-
ments for mineral liners are often unknown. Also, installation of geosynthetics
needs special experience (especially the welding of geomembranes), and in
many countries there are no continuously working placement teams.

The national experience in construction of asphalt roads was estimated as a

sound base for construction of asphalt liners, and only little training is
required here.

- Costs

The first calculation of local prices showed unit costs for the bottom liner
systems between 2 US $ / m2 for the improved profiling of subsoil, approxi-
mately 12 to 14 US $ / m2 for the mineral liner and the geosynthetics, and
more than 18 US $ / m2 for the asphalt liner. It can be assumed that the price
of the asphalt liner will decrease noticeably when the construction companies
consider the size of such a landfill and the differences between line and area
construction sites.

Due to the size of the landfill and the general importance of groundwater protection in
the particular region a geomembrane liner or an asphalt liner were proposed.
30 Bottom Barrier Systems

7 Examples of Requirements on Bottom Liner Systems

Tables 8 and 9 document the present state of requirements on bottom barriers in the
European Union and in Germany. They demonstrate general possibilities for the
definition of standards. The comparison shows two different approaches to define
requirements on barrier systems. Both systems are based on the definition of
particular landfill categories for different types of waste, and the landfill categories
I - III are more or less identical. For each landfill category the technical requirements
are defined, but while the European Union often only formulates a general frame
(e.g. whether an artificial sealing liner is required or not), the regulations in Germany
are much more detailed.

Table 8: Overview of Requirements on Bottom Barriers according to the

EU LANDFILL DIRECTIVE

Landfill Category I II III

Non-hazardous Hazardous
Type of Waste Inert Waste
Waste Waste
Composite
System - Single Liner
Liner
no particular
k 110-7 m/s k 110-9 m/s k 110-9 m/s
Geological Barrier landfill category
for soil d 1,0 m d 1,0 m d 5,0 m
Artificial Sealing
- required
Liner
required
Drainage Layer -
d 0,5 m

Table 9: Overview of Requirements on Bottom Barriers in Germany (2008)

Landfill Category DK 0 DK I DK II DK III

Demolition Municipal Hazardous
Type of Waste Soil
Waste Waste Waste
Composite Composite
System Suitable Site Single Liner
Liner Liner
k 110-7 m/s k 110-9 m/s k 110-9 m/s
Geological Barrier
d 1,0 m d 1,0 m d 5,0 m
d 0,5 m d 0,5 m
Mineral Liner - -
k 5 10-10 m/s k 510-10 m/s
(PE-HD)
Geomembrane -
d 2,5 mm

Protective Layer - necessary

d 0,3 m d 0,5 m (0,3 m)

Drainage Layer
k 1 10-3 m/s k 1 10-3 m/s
Chapter 2.2 31

8 Bibliography

ALLEN, A., 2003: Sustainable Landfilling for Developing Countries

Ninth International Waste Management and Landfill Symposium,
Sardinia 2003, Proceedings
CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy

DEUTSCHES INSTITUT FR BAUTECHNIK, DIBT, 1995: Grundstze fr den Eignungsnachweis

von Dichtungselementen in Deponieabdichtungssystemen, Berlin
(German Institute for Structural Engineering, Principles of Verification of
Suitability for Sealing Elements in Landfill Liner Systems)

DIN EN ISO 10318, 2005: Geosynthetics Terms and Definitions

EU LANDFILL DIRECTIVE, 1999: Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the Landfill
of Waste, Official Journal L 182, 16/07/1999

MITCHELL, J. K.; SOGA, K., 2005: Fundamentals of Soil Behaviour

3rd edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York

MNNICH, K., 1993: Reduction of the Migration of Contaminants through Mineral Barrier
Systems by Hydraulic Means
Fourth International Landfill Symposium, Sardinia 1993, Proceedings
CISA, Environmental Sanitary Engineering Centre, Italy

SCHNOOR, J. L., 1996: Environmental Modelling Fate and Transport of Pollutants in Water,
Soil and Air
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York