DESIGN OF PRESSURIZED LIQUID DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM FOR LANDFILL

LIQUIDS ADDITION AND AUGMENTATION

Xianda Zhao, Ph.D., P.E.

CTI and Associates, Inc., Brighton, Michigan USA
Morgan Subbarayan, P.E.
CTI and Associates, Inc., Brighton, Michigan USA
Te-Yang Soong, Ph.D., P.E.
CTI and Associates, Inc., Brighton, Michigan USA

ABSTRACT

Whether a landfill facility is conducting a bioreactor operation with large-scale liquid injection
or simply recirculating site-generate leachate, achieving uniform liquid distribution in the waste
mass is always a critical operational goal. Several methods of liquid introduction have been adopted
by the industry. Of these methods, subsurface lateral injection lines (including perforated plastic
pipes) have become “standard” design for many landfill engineers. The subsurface lateral injection
lines not only provide for safe liquid injection, they also allow for the introduction of a large volume
of liquid – even after the waste mass has reached its permitted grade.

Unfortunately, improperly-designed lateral injection lines may result in uneven liquid

distribution. Primary concerns associated with uneven distribution include: leachate outbreaks,
differential settlements, unstable working surfaces, and sometimes even slope instability.

This paper provides methodology for the design of subsurface lateral injection lines,
specifically the design of perforated pipes (pipe sizing, perforation sizing and the selection of
spacing between perforations). Essential design equations, design principle and criteria will be
presented. A design example will also be used to illustrate the step-by-step design procedures.

INTRODUCTION

During the lifespan of a landfill, moisture in the incoming waste as well as liquid entering the
waste mass (in forms of precipitation, snowmelt, surface runoff, and other liquid addition) generates
leachate. Leachate carries the characteristics of the waste constituents and needs to be properly
contained, collected, removed, treated, and ultimately disposed of safely, in order to protect human
health and minimize adverse effects to the environment. Due to the high cost of leachate treatment
and disposal, much research has been performed to find alternative uses for leachate that can reduce
amounts that must be removed from the landfill.

Since as-received waste typically still possesses additional moisture absorptive capacity, re-
introducing leachate back into the waste mass (commonly referred as “leachate recirculation”) offers
an effective way of reducing leachate treatment costs. The actual moisture absorptive capacity
remains in the waste mass (sometimes referred “moisture deficit”) varies greatly depending on the
geographic location, climate, type of waste and other pertinent factors. For landfill sites that are
located in arid or semi-arid areas and for landfills that receive large amount of incoming waste
volume, the remaining moisture absorptive capacity can be very significant. Such large amount of
absorptive capacity represents an immense cost-saving potential for landfill owners and operators
due to the circumvention of leachate disposal and treatment. In fact, reintroducing collected
leachate is widely practiced in the municipal solid waste (MSW) landfills in the United States
nowadays.

In addition to cost savings, re-introducing leachate offers additional advantages in the

operation of MSW landfills. For example, greater moisture content will increase waste compaction
therefore increasing the filling capacity and consequently, service life of the facility. Furthermore,
increased moisture promotes and accelerates biological decomposition of organic wastes, which will
yield more reusable volume. Ultimately, decomposed wastes are biologically-stabilized which
greatly reduces the long-term adverse impacts to human health and environment.

Recently, bioreactor landfills have been designed, constructed, and operated at a number of
commercial and municipal facilities throughout the United States. In bioreactor landfills, moisture
content in the waste material is quickly increased to an elevated level to allow for the initiation of
biological decomposition processes at a relatively early stage of waste filling. To achieve this goal,
a large amount of liquid is generally required and in some cases, addition of supplementary liquid is
necessary. Possible sources of supplementary liquids include leachate from other sites, storm water,
wastewater (including biosolid and septage), commercial liquids, animal manure, and others.

Whether a landfill is conducting a bioreactor operation with large-scale liquid injection or

simply recirculating site-generate leachate, achieving uniform liquid distribution in the waste mass is
always a critical operational goal. Several methods of liquid introduction have been adopted by the
industry: surface spraying, infiltration ponds, subsurface injection via vertical wells, and subsurface
injection via lateral injection lines. Due to concerns such as nuisance, safety, and volume restriction
associated with some of the methods, subsurface lateral injection lines have become “standard”
approach for many landfill engineers. The subsurface lateral injection lines not only allow for safe
liquid injection, they also allow for introduction of large volume of liquid – even after the waste
mass has reached its permitted grade.

Unfortunately, improperly-designed lateral injection lines can result in uneven liquid

distribution, which will eventually lead to issues such leachate outbreaks, differential settlements,
unstable working surface, or even slope instability.

This paper provides design methodology for the design of subsurface lateral injection lines,
including pipe sizing, perforation sizing and the perforation interval determination. Essential design
equations will be presented first, followed by the design principle and criteria and the recommended
design procedures. A design example will also be presented to illustrate the step-by-step design
procedures.

TYPICAL DESIGN AND COMMONLY SEEN ISSUES

 Typical design and construction of subsurface lateral injection lines include perforated plastic
pipes surrounded by porous media. The porous media allows for storage and rapid spreading of
liquids. Both trench- and mound-designs have been used in the industry (Figure 1). These lateral
distribution lines are typically horizontally spaced at 50 to 200 ft intervals and staggered vertically
every 10 to 50 ft (Figure 2).

“Trench” “Mound”
design design

Porous
Perforated
Media
Pipe
Porous
Media
MSW
Waste

Figure 1 – Typical Subsurface Lateral Liquid Injection Lines

50 – 200 ft

10 – 50 ft

Figure 2 - Typical Layout of Subsurface Lateral Liquid Injection Lines

Adequately designed lateral injection lines should carry the injected liquid to the end of the
perforated pipe and evenly discharge liquid along the entire line. Without proper engineering
design, un-even distribution, prolonged percolation time and excessive pressure buildup can be
expected. It is very common to see perforated injection pipe with relatively large perforations (e.g.,
½ inch or greater in diameter) drilled at a densely-spaced pattern (e.g., 4 perforations for every 6
inches). Such design minimizes the entrance pressure head hence results in a quick pressure drop
along the pipe. Consequently, vast majority of the injected liquid is discharged near the entrance of
the pipe. As illustrated in an example shown in Figure 3, ninety percent of the injected liquid is
discharged within the first 30 ft of the pipe and the discharge rate rapidly diminish beyond that point.
 2.50 250

Total flowrate = 200 gpm

Entrance Pressure = 0.5 ft W.C.
2.00 Pipe ID = 3 inches 200
Perforation: 4 holes every 6 inches
Unit Discharge Rate (gpm) Hole size: ½ inch

Flowrate in Pipe (gpm)

1.50 150

1.00 100

0.50 50

0.00 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from End of Pipe (ft)

Unit Discharge Rate Flow rate in Pipe

Figure 3 - Unit Discharge Rate and Flow Rate: the “Typical” Practice

In order to uniformly distribute the injected liquid along the entire pipe length, a “pressurized”
perforated pipe design is necessary, of which both the sizing and number of the perforations need to
be reduced. In an example illustrated in Figure 4, one ¼ inch perforation is drilled for every linear
foot of the pipe. As seen in the results, the perforated pipe is pressurized (entrance pressure head is
9 ft) and a relative uniform distribution of liquid along the entire length is achieved (between 2.2 and
1.8 gpm for any given perforation). The following sections will focus on the design of the
pressurized liquid injection pipes.

2.50 250

2.00 200
Unit Discharge Rate (gpm)

Flowrate in Pipe (gpm)

1.50 150

1.00 100

Total flowrate = 200 gpm

Entrance Pressure = 9 ft W.C.
0.50 50
Pipe ID = 3 inches
Perforation: 1 holes every 1 ft
Hole size: ¼ inch
0.00 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Distance from End of Pipe (ft)

Unit Discharge Rate Flow rate in Pipe

Figure 4 - Unit Discharge Rate and Flow Rate: the “Pressurized” Design
DESIGN METHOLOGY
Design Equations
The unit discharge rate (q) from each of the perforations is governed by the size of the
perforation and the static pressure at its respective location along the pipe:
q = BA 2 gP = 11.79d 2 P 1 / 2 (1)

Where q = flow rate per perforation (gpm)

B = orifice coefficient, assumed as 0.60
A = area of orifice (in2)
g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2)
P = pressure head over orifice (water column in ft.)
d = diameter of perforation (inch)

According to Bernoulli’s equation, total head at any given point in liquid under motion is the sum of
pressure, velocity and elevation heads:
V2
h=P+ +Z (2)
2g
Where h = total head (feet)
P = pressure head (feet)
V = velocity (ft/sec)
g = gravitational acceleration (32.2 ft/s2)
Z = elevation head (feet)
Change of total head in pipes is primarily due to friction and other minor losses. Since perforated
pipes are typically constructed with straight sections with limited number of joints, minor losses are
generally considered negligible. Therefore, the friction loss along the pipe will determine the
change in total head. Friction loss in pipes can be calculation using Hazen-Williams equation as:
⎛ Q 1.85 ⎞
1.85
⎛ 100 ⎞
h f = 0.002082 L⎜ ⎟ ⎜⎜ 4.8655 ⎟⎟ (3)
⎝ C ⎠ ⎝D ⎠
Where hf = friction loss head (feet)
L = length of pipe (feet)
C = pipe friction factor (150 for HDPE pipes)
Q = flow rate in pipe (gpm)
D = nominal pipe size (inch)

Due to discharge at perforations, flow in perforated pipes varies along the pipe length (Figure 5).
Flow in perforated pipes can be obtained by summing discharges from all of the downstream holes:
i
Qi = ∑ q j (4)
j =1

Where Qi = flow in the pipe before perforation “i” (gpm)

qj = discharge rate at perforation “j” (downstream of “i”, gpm)
 D ∆L
L

Qn-1 Qn-2 Qn-3 Q3 Q2 Q1

Q= Qn n n-1 n-2 n-3 3 2 1

qn qn-1 qn-2 qn-3 q3 q2 q1

d
Figure 5 – Flow Rate along Perforated Pipe

Friction loss in each section between two perforations can be determined as:

⎛ 100 ⎞
1.85
⎛ Qi 1.85 ⎞
h f i = 0.002082∆L⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (5)
⎝ C ⎠ ⎜ D 4.8655 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
Where “∆L” is the spacing between two adjacent perforations. “∆L” can be calculated based on total
number of perforations (“n”) as:
L
∆L = (6)
n −1
Based on the conservation of energy, the total head can be calculated as:
2 2
Vi V
h = Pi + + zi = Pi +1 + i+1 + zi+1 + h fi (7)
2g 2g
For low velocity flow (less than 5 ft/sec), the kinetic head is generally very low (less than 0.4 ft) and
is typically neglected. For horizontal-placed pipes, pressure at an upstream perforation can be
determined as:
Pi +1 = Pi + h f i (8)

The unit discharge rate at an upstream perforation can be calculated as:

⎛ 100 ⎞
1.85
⎛ Qi 1.85 ⎞
qi +1 = 11.79d 2
Pi + h f i = 11.79d 2
Pi + 0.002082∆L⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (9)
⎝ C ⎠ ⎜ D 4.8655 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
The unit discharge rate at the end of the pipe (q1) can be calculated as:
q1 = 11.79d 2 P1 (10)

where P1 is the pressure at end of the pipe.

Once the far-end pressure value (P1) and the far-end discharge rate (q1) are determined, unit
discharge rate for all perforations can be obtained using Equations (4) and (9). The entrance
pressure and the total flow rate will be utilized in the pumping system calculations. The above-listed
procedures can be readily incorporated in spreadsheet programs. However, a trial-and-error process
may be required to match the pumping system requirements.
Design Principles
 The ratio of unit discharge rates between the first and the last perforations can be used to
quantify the uniformity of liquid distribution. In other words, if the ratio for a given perforated pipe
design is closer to unity, the liquid is more evenly distributed. As the examples illustrated in Figures
3 and 4, a satisfactory ratio of 1.2 can be found in the “pressurized” pipe design whereas a ratio
greater than 10,000 (which is clearly inadequate) can be seen in the low pressure design.

Note that the variation in the unit discharge rates is caused by the pressure change in the pipe
and the relative change of the discharge rate can be determined as:
q n − q1 Pn − P1
= (11)
qn Pn

Deriving from Equation (11), a correlation between the change in discharge rate and the change in
pressure can be developed as:
2
∆P ∆q ⎛ ∆q ⎞
=2 −⎜ ⎟ (12)
Pn q n ⎜⎝ q n ⎟⎠

where ∆q = qn - q1
∆P = Pn - P1

The correlation between the change in pipe pressure and the change in unit discharge rates can be
established using Equation (12), see Figure 6.

60%

50%
Change in Entrance Pressure

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Change in Unit Discharge Rate

Figure 6 – Correlation between Change in Unit Discharge Rate and Change in Entrance Pressure
As previously discussed, pressure change in pipe is primarily due to friction loss:
 n −1
∆P = ∑ h f i (13)
i =1

The total friction loss in perforated pipes can be estimated using Equation (14):
∆P = ∆P * F (14)
Note that “F” is a correction factor and “∆P*” is the friction loss calculated for a solid wall pipe
having same diameter, length, and total flow rate. Equations (15) and (16) depict the determinations
for “F” and “∆P*”, respectively. Note that the correlation shown in Equation (15) is established
based on an assumption that the change of unit discharge rate is less than 20%.
n −1

∑i 1.85

F= i =1
(15)
(n − 1)n1.85
⎛ 100 ⎞
1.85
⎛ Qn 1.85 ⎞
∆P = 0.002082 L⎜
*
⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (16)
⎝ C ⎠ ⎜ D 4.8655 ⎟
⎝ ⎠
As shown in Equation (15), the correction factor “F” is a function of the number of
perforations along the pipe. As the number of perforations increases, the correction factor decreases
and ultimately levels off at a value of 0.36 (Figure 7). For most design with more than 100 holes
along the pipe, a correction factor “F” of 0.36 can be used.

0.65
0.60
0.55
F=hf/hf*

0.50
0.45
0.40
0.35
0.30
0 50 100 150 200
Number of Hole on Perforated Pipe (n)

Figure 7 - Friction Loss Correction Factor for Perforated Pipe

Finally, by combining and rearranging Equations (14) and (16), the required pipe diameter can be
determined as:
0.2055 0.3802
⎛ LF ⎞ ⎛ Qn ⎞
D = 1.6193⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ (17)
⎝ ∆P ⎠ ⎝C ⎠
Design Procedures
 Uniform liquid distribution along the perforated liquid injection pipes can be achieved by
proper selection of pipe diameter, size of perforations, and spacing between perforations. A
systematic procedure can be presented in a flowchart format as shown in Figure 8. Individual steps
will be discussed in detail in the following subsections.

Input
Pipe length (L) and linear discharge rate (q*)

Calculation
Total flow rate (Q)

Design
Pumping system
and entrance pressure
Change linear discharge rate (q*)

Select
Perforation diameter (d) and unit discharge rate (q)

Calculate
Number of perforations (n) and spacing (∆L)

Satisfied?
No
YES
Calculation Input
Pressure difference between first and last perforations Allowed variation
Eq. 17 and Fig. 7 for unite discharge rate

Calculation
Determine pipe diameter

Satisfied?
No
YES
Output
Perforation diameter (d), spacing (∆L),
pipe diameter (D) and entrance pressure (Pn)

Figure 8 – Design Procedure Flowchart

1. Selecting input parameters

Length of the perforated pipe (“L”) is generally determined by the dimensions of the waste lift
where the injection line is to be installed. To avoid leachate outbreaks on refuse slopes, the
injection lines should not be located within 50 ft of the exterior waste slope. The injection lines
are typically spaced horizontally 50- to 150 ft with a vertical interval of 20 ft.

The linear discharge rate (q*) should also be pre-selected. The actual value is controlled by the
infiltration capacity of the waste. Reinhart and Townsend (1998) suggested that injection rates
between 25- to 50 gpd/ft are adequate. To further promote lateral distribution and minimize
biological clogging, intermittent liquid injection should also be considered (Reinhart and
Townsend, 1998). Generally speaking, selecting linear discharge rate between 0.2- to 0.4 gpm/ft
seems appropriate.
2. Determining total flow rate
 The total flow rate (Q) can be calculated as:
Q = Lq * (18)
Note that this total flow rate is identical to the entrance flow rate (Qn).

3. Determining the entrance pressure

Based on the required flow rate, the pumping and forcemain analyses can be conducted and
subsequently, the entrance pressure can be determined. Since the procedure is a common
practice for hydraulic engineers, no detailed discussed will be provided herein. Note that,
however, the entrance pressure should be less than 5 psi (11.5 ft of water column) to avoid
excessive increase in pore pressure which may adversely impact the slope stability (Bachus, et
al., 2004).

4. Selecting size of perforations and calculating the unit discharge rate

As long as the clogging potential is avoided, smaller perforation sizes are preferred for better
liquid distribution. Unit discharge rate can be determined based on the entrance pressure and the
perforation size using Equation (1). See Figure 9 for typical correlations.

20
18
d=1/8 in
16
d=3/16 in
Maximum Recommended Entrance Pressure 11.5 ft
14
Pressure (ft)

d=1/4 in
12
d=5/16 in
10
d=3/8 in
8
d=7/16 in
6
d=1/2 in
4
2
0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Unit Discharge Rate (gpm)

Figure 9 – Unit Discharge Rate vs. Entrance Pressure for Different Sizes of Perforation
5. Calculating number and spacing of perforations
Number of perforations (n) can be calculated as:
Q
n= (19)
q
Spacing between perforations (∆L) can be calculated as:
L
∆L = (20)
n −1
In most cases, the number of perforations (n) should be greater than 50 (i.e., q/Q < 2%) and
spacing between perforations (∆L) should be less than 2% of the length of perforated section (L).
If these requirements are met, the design procedure can continue. Otherwise, a new perforation
size shall be selected and Step 4 shall be repeated until all design requirements are met.

6. Selecting the allowable variation for unit discharge rate and calculating the corresponding
allowable pressure difference

Friction loss along the perforated pipe can be minimized but can not be completely eliminated.
In other words, some differences in the unit discharge rate will always exist. A tolerable
variation should be pre-determined for each project. To maintain a reasonable pipe size, the
tolerance (∆q/qn) can be set between 10% and 20%. The corresponding variance in pressure
between the two extreme ends of the perforated pipe can be calculated using Equation (12) or
Figure 6. Subsequently, the allowable pressure drop (∆P) in the perforated pipe can be
calculated based on the entrance pressure.

7. Determining pipe size

Size of the perforated pipe can be determined using Equation (17), or Figure 10, based on the
unit friction loss and total flow rate. Unit friction loss can be calculated by dividing the
allowable pressure drop (∆P) by the length of perforated pipe (L). Note that the correction factor
(F) can be obtained from Figure 7. If the number of perforation is greater than 100, the value of
“F” can be assumed as 0.36.

The diameter of the perforated pipe should be rounded to higher standard size. If the result is not
satisfactory, a new linear discharge rate can be selected and the entire design procedure can be
repeated. The following example illustrates the use of the above-mentioned design procedures.

DESIGN EXAMPLE
A landfill plans to install several leachate recirculation lines on the active surface. Based on
the geometry of the lift boundary, three subsurface leachate injection lines will be installed (Figure
11). Leachate will be pumped from the storage facility, through a forcemain, into a control vault
located at the base of the northeastern slope. Designated transmission lines will direct leachate from
the vault into the perforated pipes. Only one line will be used during each injection event.
 0.08 0.010

0.009
0.07
0.008
0.06
0.007
Unit Friction Loss

Unit Friction Loss

0.05
0.006
D=2 in
0.04 0.005
D=3 in
D=4 in
0.004
0.03
D=5 in
D=2 in 0.003
0.02 D=6 in
D=3 in 0.002
0.01
D=4 in 0.001

0.00 0.000
0 50 100 150 200 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Flowrate in Pipe (gpm) Flowrate in Pipe (gpm)

Figure 10 - Unit Friction Loss at Different Flow Rate

Leachate Leachate
Storage Transmission
Facility Control Lines Lift Boundary
Vault

ft 100 ft 100 ft 100 ft

50
ai n
150 ft

cem
300 ft

For
600 ft

Leachate
Recirculation
Lines

Figure 11 – Layout of the Proposed Leachate Recirculation System (Example Problem)

Using the recommended procedures discussed earlier, the following design can be formulated:
1. Selecting input parameters
Line Length Linear Discharge Rate
(ft) (gpm/ft)
1 600 0.15
2 300 0.30
3 150 0.60
Note that the selected linear discharge rates will result in similar total discharge rate for each
of the 3 injection lines.

2. Determining total flow rate using Equation (18)

Line Linear Discharge Rate Total Flow Rate
(gpm/ft) (gpm)
1 0.15 90
2 0.30 90
3 0.60 90

3. Determining the entrance pressure

To avoid excessive velocity and friction the loss, flow rate will be controlled below 100
gpm. Note that the entrance (immediately before the first perforation) pressures listed below
were determined via separate forcemain analyses. Differences in the calculated entrance
pressures are results of the different lengths in the transmission pipes between the control
vault and the perforated pipes.

Line Entrance Pressure

(Water column in ft.)
1 2.5
2 3.4
3 4.3

4. Selecting size of perforations and calculating the unit discharge rate

A perforation size is pre-selected as 3/16 inches in diameter. With that, the unit discharge
rates can be calculated using Equation (1). Results of the unit discharge rates are listed
below:

Line Entrance Pressure Diameter of Unit Discharge Rate

(Water column in ft.) Perforation (inch) (gpm)
1 2.5 3/16 0.66
2 3.4 3/16 0.76
3 4.3 3/16 0.86
5. Calculating number and spacing of perforations
For Line 1, the number of perforations can be calculated as:
 Q 90
n= = ≈ 137
q 0.66
Subsequently, the spacing between perforations (∆L) can be determined as:
L 600
∆L = = ≈ 4.40 ft
n − 1 137 − 1
For ease of construction, the spacing is set to 4.5 ft, which will result in a total of 134
perforations. Same procedures can be repeated for Lines 2 and 3. Results for all three lines
are listed below.
Line Length Total Flow Rate Unit Discharge Rate No. of Spacing
(ft) (gpm) (gpm) Perforations (ft)
1 600 90 0.66 135* 4.5
2 300 90 0.76 121 2.5
3 150 90 0.86 101 1.5
Note: *Spacing for the last two perforations at end of the pipe is 1.5 ft.

6. Selecting the allowable variation for unit discharge rate and calculating the corresponding
allowable pressure difference

The allowable variation in the unit discharge rate is pre-selected as 20%. With that, the
allowable pressure drop can be calculated using Equation (12).

Line Variation in Unit Entrance Pressure Allowed Pressure Drop

Discharge Rate (Water column in ft.) (ft)
1 20% 2.5 0.90
2 20% 3.4 1.22
3 20% 4.3 1.55

7. Determine pipe size

Diameter of the pipe can be calculated using Equation (17). The correction factor “F” can be
selected using Figure 6. Since the numbers of perforations are greater than 100 for all three
lines, an “F-value” of 0.36 will be used for the pipe sizing calculations for all lines.

Line Length Total Flow Allowed No. of Pipe Diameter Pipe Diameter
(ft) Rate Pressure Drop Perforations - Calculated - Selected
(gpm) (ft) (inch) (inch)
1 600 90 0.90 135 4.11 4
2 300 90 1.22 121 3.35 4
3 150 90 1.55 101 2.77 3
Note that the pipe diameter can also be selected based on the unit friction loss and the total
flow rate using Figure 10.
8. Results verification
Based on output of the design procedures (i.e., pipe size, perforation size and spacing,
 entrance pressure, etc.), three simulations were executed using a spreadsheet program that
incorporates Equations (4), (9) and (10). Results of the simulation illustrate the predicted
discharge rate at each of the perforations along the entire perforated sections, see Figure 12.

Further examining the results shown in Figure 12 reveals that the actual variations of unit
discharge flow rates (changes between the first and the last perforations) are 18%, 7% and
10% for Lines 1, 2 and 3, respectively. All of which are less than the pre-selected maximum
allowable variation (20%, see Step 6 in the previous section). Therefore the design is
verified as appropriate. Otherwise different pipe sizing may be considered and the
procedures can be repeated until the result is successfully verified.
1.0
0.9
(gpm)(gpm)

0.8
0.7
Hole Rate

0.6
Flow per Flow

0.5
Unit Discharge

0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Length
Distance fromfrom distal
the end of(ft)
pipe (ft)

Line 1 Line 2 Line 3

Figure 12 – Predicted Discharge Flow Rate along the Perforated Pipes (Example Problem)

MAXIMUM PERFORATION LENGTH

There is a theoretical length limitation to the perforated section of any liquid injection pipe. In
other words, one set of design parameters (i.e., pipe size, perforation size and spacing, allowable
variation in unit discharge rate and entrance pressure, etc.) will not offer same performance when
different perforated lengths are used.

To demonstrate this fact, two design charts were developed and shown in Figures 13 and 14.
Both charts assumed a 5-ft spacing between perforations and an entrance pressure of 5-ft of water
column. Additionally, both charts correlate the perforation size with the maximum pipe length and
the corresponding discharge flow rates for different pipe sizes. The only difference between Figures
13 and 14 is the allowable variation among the unit discharge rates – a maximum variation of 10%
and 20% were assigned in Figures 13 and 14, respectively.
 2000

1800

1600

1400
Max Pipe Length (ft)

D=6 in
1200
D=5 in
1000 D=4 in
D=3 in
800
D=2 in
600

400

200

0
1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2
Orifice Diameter (in)

400

350

300
Total Flowrate (gpm)

250 D=6 in
D=5 in
200 D=4 in
D=3 in
150 D=2 in

100

50

0
1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2
Orifice Diameter (in)

Figure 13 – Correlation between Size of Perforation, Maximum Pipe Length and Discharge Flow
Rates for Different Pipe Sizes (maximum allowable difference on unit discharge rate = 10%)
 2500

2000
Max Pipe Length (ft)

D=6 in
1500
D=5 in
D=4 in
D=3 in
1000
D=2 in

500

0
1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2
Orifice Diameter (in)
500

450

400

350
Total Flowrate (gpm)

D=6 in
300
D=5 in
250 D=4 in
D=3 in
200
D=2 in
150

100

50

0
1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2
Orifice Diameter (in)

Figure 14 – Correlation between Size of Perforation, Maximum Pipe Length and Discharge Flow
Rates for Different Pipe Sizes (maximum allowable difference on unit discharge rate = 20%)

As clearly indicated in Figures 13 and 14, all of the design parameters are interrelated and no
“typical” perforated pipe design is universally applicable. Design engineers should have a thorough
understanding of both the project requirements and the design mechanism in order to provide an
effective design of liquid injection system.
PARAMETRIC ANALYSES AND OBSERVATIONS
This section presents the results of a series of parametric analyses. The parametric analyses
were designed to demonstrate the sensitivity embedded in various design parameters in the design of
perforated liquid injection pipes. Four critical design parameters including size of perforation, size
of pipe, spacing between perforations, and the entrance pressure were evaluated. Table 1
summarizes the results of the parametric analyses and the authors’ observations and comments.

Table 1 – Results of the Parametric Analyses with Observations

Design Range of Graphical
Observations/Comments
Parameter Variation Results
Perforation size 1/8- to 1/2” Figure 15 • Smaller perforations allow for longer liquid
in diameter injection distances.
• However, total flow rate will decrease when smaller
perforations are used, which implies a longer
injection period during each injection event.
• Maximum injection distance varies between 80- to
540 ft within the range of analyses.
Pipe size 2- to 6 inch Figure 16 • Larger pipes allow for longer injection distances.
in diameter • Maximum injection distance varies between 100- to
710 ft within the range of analyses.
Perforation 1- to 10 ft. Figure 17 • Maximum injection length can be increased by using
spacing larger perforation spacing.
• Due to potential clogging of perforations, the
authors recommend a maximum of 10-ft spacing
between perforations.

Entrance 1 to 10 ft of Figure 18 • Entrance pressure has only slightly influence on the

pressure water maximum injection length.
column • However, flow rate does increase with higher
pressure, which implies a shorter injection period
during each injection event.

CONCLUSIONS
One of the essential goals when designing liquid injection lines is to uniformly distribute liquid
into the waste mass. According to the information documented in literature and the authors’ past
project experiences, the most effective injection method is the use of lateral injection lines (trenches
or mounds). However, an improperly-designed lateral injection line can still result in an uneven
liquid distribution, which may eventually lead to issues such leachate outbreaks, differential
settlements, unstable working surface, or even slope instability.

A systematic design procedure is recommended and presented in this paper, following which
will allow the engineers to properly select system parameters (e.g., pipe size, perforation size,
perforation spacing, and entrance pressure) and meet their project-specific requirements.
 600 120
Entrance Pressure = 5 ft W.C.
500 Pipe ID = 3 inches 100
Perforation: 1 hole every 5 ft

Total Flowrate (gpm)

Maximum Length (ft)
400 80

300 60

200 40

100 20

0 0
1/8 3/16 1/4 5/16 3/8 7/16 1/2
Hole Size (inch)

Max Pipe Length Flowrate

Figure 15 - Effect of Perforation Sizes (∆q/q =10%)

800 240
Entrance Pressure = 5 ft W.C.
700 Perforation: 1 hole every 5 ft 210
Hole size = ¼ inch
600 180

Total Flowrate (gpm)

Maximum Length (ft)

500 150

400 120

300 90

200 60

100 30

0 0
2 3 4 5 6
Pipe ID (inch)

Max Pipe Length Flowrate

Figure 16 - Effect of Pipe Sizes (∆q/q =10%)

 450
400

Maximum Pipe Length (ft)

350
300
250
200
150 Entrance Pressure = 5 ft W.C.
100 Hole size = ¼ inch
50 Pipe ID = 3 inch
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
160 Spacing between Holes (ft)
140
Total Flowrate (gpm)

120 dq/q=10% dq/q=20%

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Spacing between Holes (ft)

dq/q=10% dq/q=20%

Figure 17 - Effect of Perforation Spacing

450
400
Maximum Pipe Length (ft)

350
300
250
200
150 Hole size = ¼ inch
100 Spacing = 5 ft
50 Pipe ID = 3 inch
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
160
Entrance Pressure (ft W.C.)
140
Total Flowrate (gpm)

120 dq/q=10% dq/q=20%

100
80
60
40
20
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Entrance Pressure (ft W.C.)

dq/q=10% dq/q=20%

Figure 18 - Effect of Entrance Pressure

REFERNCES

Reinhart, D.R. and T.G. Townsend (1998). “Landfill Bioreactor Design and Operation”, published
by Lewis Publishers, New York

Bachus, R.C., M.F. Houlihan, E. Kavazanjian, R. Isenberg, and J.F. Beech (2004). “Bioreactor
landfill stability: key considerations”, in MSW Management, September/October,
http://www.mswmanagement.com/mw_0409_biostability.html