Technical paper by M.A. Warith, P.A. Smolkin and J.G. Caldwell EVALUATION OF AN HDPE GEOMEMBRANE LANDFILL COVER PERFORMANCE ABSTRACT: The objective ofthis study is to develop a rational methodology for establishing the long-term behavior ofa high density polyethylene geomembrane cover system. The procedures followed in this evaluation incorporated various concepts provided by other researchers and the examination of various sets of field data regarding the landfill settlement. The study includes the prediction of the long-term landfill cover settlement, examination of the change in lateral drainage and leakage rates as well as an examination of the change in high density polyethylene cover tensile tension due to the landfill cover settlement. The results ofthis study indicate the integrity of the high density polyethylene geomembrane regardless of the observed localized settlement inthe landfill cover due to the solid waste decomposition and consolidation KEY WORDS: Landfill Cover, Settlement, Leakage Rate, Lateral Drainage, Tension. AUTHORS: M.A. Warith, Project Manager, Golder Associates Ltd., 1796 Courtwood Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K2C 2B5, Canada, Telephone: 1/613-224-5864, Telefax: 11613-224-9928. P.A. Smolkin, Principal, Golder Associates Ltd., 1796 Courwood Crescent, Ottawa, Ontario K2C 2B5, Canada, Telephone: 1/613-224-5864, Telefax: 11613-224-9928. J.G, Caldwell, Associate, J.L. Richards & Associates Lid., 864 Lady Ellen Place, Ottawa, Ontario K1Z M2, Canada, Telephone: 1/613-728-3571, Telefax: 613-728-6012. PUBLICATION: Geosynthetics International is published by the Industrial Fabrics Association International, 345 Cedar St., Suite 800, St. Paul, MN, 35101, USA, Tele- phone: 1/612-222-2508, Telefax: 1/612-222-8215. Geosynthetics International is regis- tered under ISSN 1072-6349. DATES: Original manuscript received 28 March 1994, accepted 20 May 1994, Discus- sion open until 1 August 1995. REFERENCE: Warith, M.A., Smolkin, P.A. and Caldwell, J.G., 1994, “Evaluation of an HDPE Geomembrane Landfill Cover Performance”, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 201-219. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL © 1994, VOL. 1, NO.2 201\WARITH, SHOLKIN AUD CALDWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi Cover Performance INTRODUCTION ‘The Trail Road Landfil is located in Nepean, Ontario, within the Regional Munici- pality of Ottawa-Carleton (RMOC). The site has been operating as a municipal sol waste landfill since 1980. Development of the landfill has been carried out using a staged approach. Solid waste was placed in Stage 1 from 1980 to 1986 and a final cover was constructed in 1988. The purpose of the Stage 1 closure cover system, which incorporates a single high density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane hydraulic barter, is to limit infiltration into the landfill cell to less than 100 mm/year, thereby limiting leachate production and reducing the impact on the local groundwater regime. Figure 1 illustrates the general layout of the site and the relative location of Stage 1 with respect to other site festures. ‘Since its construction the HDPE cover has experienced local and differential settle- ‘ments which could have an adverse affect on the cover performance. The objectives of the present study were to: evaluate the landfill cover system by comparing historical aerial photography contour maps; examine data from scttlement plates installed within the waste; predict the future settlement or ultimate settlement of the landfill cover system; evaluate the potential increase in leakage rates through the cover due to the cover settlement; and, determine the additional or increase of tension in the HDPE. ‘geomembrane at various critical cross-sections in the landfill cover. ‘This paper is organized to address each of the above-mentioned objectives followed by a discussion on the long-term effects of the landfill settlement on the overall performance of the HDPE geomembrane cover. The study is based on the evaluation of various sets of field data regarding the landfill settlement. LANDFILL COVER SETTLEMEN’ Aerial photography and preparation of topographic maps of the Trail Road Landfill is undertaken annually as part of the site operation plan. Comparisons between contour cover elevations in 1988 and 1992 revealed that the southwest portion of the Stage 1 cover exhibits the highest total and differential settlement in comparison to other areas Of the cover. The total settlement in an area of about 10,000 m?, which surrounds settlement plate SP1, ranges between 0.4 to 1.9 m. Other areas in the Stage 1 cover exhibit lesser total settlement and differential settlement than the area located in the southwest part of Stage 1. Figure 2 displays the Stage 1 landfill cover contour lines in 1992, while Figure 3 provides the cross-sections through the Stage 1 landfill cover, ‘which illustrate the difference in the landhil cover elevations during the period from T9RR to 1997 (Change in Surface Elevation Due to Final Cover Construction ‘The six settlement plate installations placed within the Stage 1 cover were monitored from September 1986 to August 1992, i. prior to and after the completion of the cover construction. The settlement plates (SP1 to SP6) were installed approximately 1 m below the refuse surface. The initial settlement plate elevations are given in mar GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL «1894, VOL, 1.2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi! Cover Performance Figure 1. Landa site plan. GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL » 199, VOL. 1, NO. 2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL HOPE Geomembrane Landfill Cover Performance 8 z as ace 3 115) Bol Ltesue| Ton 060 100 150 200 250 300 380 400 450 Horizontal distance (m) SECTION'D-'0 3 3 #8 gh 3 2 3 3 § g [igure 2. Stage 1 contour lines in 1992. ‘Table 1, together with the final cover elevations. These data allow the céleulation of the surcharge above the settlement plates. The total thickness of the fill materials above the settlement plates ranges between 2.90 to 3.90 m. The comparison of total settlement 204 COSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL = 994, VOL. 4, NO. 2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi! Cover Pertarmance SECTION ‘A- 7” ES ee .* PTT | root satace 3 0 5 0s 100 | | © 80 100 150 200 250 300 350 Horizontal distans “500 550 600 SECTION e™ 1368 iar gf B19 ai aoa Toby jog Li 0 50 100 150 200 250 900 Horizontal distance (m) SECTION ‘C- = 10 SR. 1988 surface Es = § 1991 surface 3 110 & 10s 100 © 50 100 150 200 250 300 950 400 450 500 Horizontal distance (m) Figure 3, Cross-sections of settlement of landfill cover. data versus the thickness of the fill materials above the settlement plates indicates no specific trend, and also indicates that the settlement at a specific location is most probably related to the nature of the landfill materials at that location, (GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL «1894, VOL 1, NO. 2 205\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landfill Cover Performance 119 oo 413 | ____®——— sp2 E 5 fee 3 SP5 B 16+ sP4—— _ sPt 1154 — SP6 SP3 114 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Time (years) Figure 4. Rate of settlement, Rate of Settlement ‘The rates of settlement atthe location of the settlement plates after the construction of the final cover are provided in Figure 4. The average rate of settlement at SP! approximately 50 mm/month, while at SP6 the setlement rate is about 30 mVmonth. It should be mentioned that the higher settlement rate at SPI was also noticed before the final cover placement in Stage 1. Figure 4 also illustrates that the refuse settlement is still active at a nearly constant rate, with no indication of a decrease in the rate of settlement. In other words, the primary stage of refuse settlement still appears to be in progress; i.e. the refuse has not yet reached the secondary consolidation stage, ‘wherein the rate of settlement would show a decreasing trend. Table 2 provides the elevations of the Stage 1 cover surface at the settlement plate locations as interpreted from the contour maps. A comparison between the change in settlement plate elevations and the change in landfill cover elevations revealed that the magnitude of the cover settlement is significantly greater by a factor of 1.6 to 4, ‘This data indicated that the response of settlement plates to the ongoing ccmpression Of the refuse is not representative of that experienced by the cover surface. Although it is expected that the cover surface should generally settle somewhat more than the plates because it is underlain by a greater total thickness of material, This observed discrepancy does not account for the measured difference in total settlement since ‘most of the additional material above the settlement plates consists of granular sols. 206 LOS YITHETICS TERNATIONAL» 1804, VOL 1, NO. 2WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane nll Cover Performance ‘Table 1. Elevations of the settlement plates and the final cover surface at the settlement plate locations. Seulement Plate | iil 1988 Cover Approximate Number | Elevations | Surface Elevations | Height of Fill (m) (m) above the Plates (o) SPI 11650 34s sr 18.00 304 sP3 ars 343 spa 118.70 an SPs 117.00 304 $6 1840 29 ‘Table 2. Change in the cover surface elevations at the settlement plate locations. Senlement Plate Cover Surface Elevation (m) ‘Approximate Approximate Number ‘Teta Cover | Average Cover 1983 | 1990 | 1991 | 1992 | Setlement (mm) | Setiement (mm) spi 1630 uusoo | 11430 2000 0 sr e090 1720 | 710 ‘900 18 sea ars 11400 730 Pa 118.70 5.00 700 4 SPs 117.00 11600 000 20 $6 340 114.00 ” Ultimate Settlement Predictions ‘The mechanisms of refuse settlement are many and complex which make cover settlement predictions over a longer period of time nota straightforward task. According to Edil etal, (1990) refuse setlement under its own weight is typically 5 to 30% of the original thickness, with most of the setlement occurring in the first two years ater landfill closure. However, in general, time for settlement would be expected to be waste specific. The settlement data was used to predict the ultimate settlement using the Gibson and Lo model (1961), which takes into account the inital refuse density ‘of void ratio, fill height, leachate level in the landfill and the surcharge created by ‘material weight above the level ofthe settlement plate. Other factors such as; content ‘of decomposable materials in the refuse, moisture content, temperature, and gases which are present or penetrate the landfill are also included in the model through the use of the constants , band Mb. These constants are defined as: a= primary compress- ibility parameter; b = secondary compressibility parameter; and Mb = rate of secondary compression GEOSYNTHETOS INTERNATIONAL» 1854, VOL 1,NO.2 207WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landfill Cover Perfarmance ‘Table 3. Predicted ultimate settlement of the landfill cover surface. Seulement Pate | Toa! | Unimate® | Percent of” Namber | Setlement | Setement | Uline Setlement (om (om) Reached (%) set 2000 $500 “ sr 300 2500 36 Sra 730 350 8 SPs 10, 1500 6 SPs 1000 2300 35 SPS 1400 3400 a [Notes (1) Total setlement calculate from 1988 to 1992 contour maps; 2) Ukimatestement calculated sing Gibson and Lo model (1961): and (3) Percentage of setlement reached in relation tothe estimated ‘imate setlement. Table 4. Daily maximum water heads on the geomembrane as calculated by the HELP model. Cover Slope | Daily Maximum Heads (mm) (®) LF = o00001 | LF = c.o001 09 no 425 10 cy as 20 "0 05 2s 60 39 Noe: LF = leakage fraction of seomembrane It should be noted that the ultimate settlement predictions are based on the calculation of the a, b and A/b constants using the settlement data. In other words, the constant’s, ‘values are considered to represent the nature and environmental conditions ofthe refuse at the location of the settlement plates, and are used to estimate the ultimate settlement at each settlement plate location. This time-dependent settlement can be expressed as, (Eail etal, 1990): Ah =heW=hdo [e +ba- ext-(4)0] a ttlement; h = initial height of refuse; « = vertical stain; Ao = change stress; and f = time since load application. ‘The estimated ultimate settlement results are summarized in Table 3. A curve fitting technique was employed to determine the most representative constants. Also included in Table 3, are the percentages of ultimate settlement already achieved at each settle- ‘ment plate location. Based on the Gibson and Lo model, the west side of the Stage 1 hhas only settled about 20 to 40% of the estimated ultimate settlement, while the east side of Stage 1 landfill has settled about 60% of the estimated ultimate settlement. 208 {OS YOTHETICS INTERNATIONAL «1004, VOL. 1, MO. 2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL + HDPE Geomembrane Lani Cover Performance CHANGE IN COVER LATERAL DRAINAGE AND LEAKAGE RATES Efficient lateral drainage of the cover soil immediately above the geomembrane will most effectively remove infiltrated water and minimize the head of water above the HDPE geomembrane barrier, and thus reduce potential infiltration through the geomem- brane. The progressive settiement of the landfill could affect the landfill drainage patter. Assessment of the landfill settlement data indicated thatthe landfill cover slope decreased from an average value of 2.5% to about 1.3%. Two methods were used to determine the head of water above the geomembrane cover: the “Hydrologic Evaluation ‘of Landfill Performance” (HELP) model (Shroeder etal. 1983), and a method developed bby Metry (EPA 1988). ‘The calculated maximum daily head of water above the geomembrane ranges between 680 to 730 mm for a geomembrane leakage fraction of 0.00001 and cover slope ranging between 2.5 to 0.0%, while the calculated maximum daily head of water above the landfill cover ranges between 390 to 425 mm for a geomembrane leakage fraction of 0.0001 and cover slope ranging between 2.5 to 00%. ‘These maximum daily heads are calculated based on a maximum daily infiltration rate of 44 mm. The results indicate that with 0.0 and 1.0% cover slopes and a geomembrane leakage fraction of 0.00001, the potential for water mounding above the cover surface exist. ‘The daily maximum head values obtained from the HELP model are summarized in Table 4. Daily Head Calculation Using Metry's Method ‘The average daily head was calculated using Metry's method (1982) assuming an average constant daily infiltration of 0.7 mm/day, average annual infiltration of 275 ‘man/year and drainage distance of 60 m. The formula used in Metry's method is: veo) Has L s ve[ +3 2 Where: Har = average daly head; L = drainage distance; C= Ef: k, = hydraulic conductivity (104; E = infiltration through cover; and S = slope of sand drain. The constant daily head on the geomembrane ranges between 130 to 270 mm fora cover slope of 25 to 0.0%. Based on the above analytical results of the change in the head of water on the geomembrane as calculated by the HELP model and Metry's method, the reduction in the cover slope from 2.5 to 0.0% will increase the maximum daily head of water above the geomembrane cover from 680 to 730 mm, and will increase the constant daily head from 130 0 270 mm. Change in Lateral Drainage and Leakage Rates ‘The HELP model was employed to determine the effect on the lateral drainage and ‘geomembrane leakage rates due to a decrease in Stage 1 cover slope caused by the (SEOSYNTHETCS INTERNATIONAL +1984, VOL. _NO.2 209\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi Cover Peformance ‘Table 5. Change in average lateral drainage and leakage rate. Cover Slope ‘Average Lateral Drainage ‘Average Leakage Rage w (amyear) (amex) uF = ooo | LF = 0001 | r= oo | LF = a0001 00 8 B n 29 10 18 26 1 266 20 139 “ 6 250 23 7 32 a 261 Note: LF = leakage faction of geamembrane progressive refuse settlement. As mentioned previously, the initial design slope ofthe Stage | cover is about 25%. However, examination ofthe 1992 surface contours and cross-sections revealed thatthe slope has dropped from 2.5 to 1.3% in some locations ‘The decrease in the cover slope in these locations may have a potential adverse affect on the drainage and leakage rates, due to the accompanying change in the maximum head on the geomembrane cover, as indicated in the previous section. Table 5 summarizes the results of the change in the average lateral drainage and geomembrane leakage rates due to the change in the cover slope from 2.5 to 0.0%, and also the sensitivity tote leakage fraction of the geomembrane cover from 0.00001 to 0.0001. These two leakage fraction values have been assumed in order to illustrate the effect of an increase in the number of defects (holes) in the geomembrane by one order of magnitude associated with the ongoing settlement. The results indicate that the annual average lateral drainage rates will be reduced substantially due to the reduction in the geomembrane cover slope. Changing the cover slope from 2.5 to 0.0% will cause a reduction in the lateral drainage by about 50%. Furthermore, the same decrease in the cover slope will increase the annual average leakage rate through the _geomembrane from 62 to 78 mm/year, will cause an increase in the average leakage rate by approximately 25%. Tt should be noted tht the above results assume no change in the geomembrane leakage fraction (LF = 0.00001). However, assuming @ worst case scenario of increas- {ng the leakage fraction from 0.00001 to 0.0001, the HELP model simulations indicate 4 more drastic decrease inthe annual average lateral drainage, and an inerease in the annual average leakage rate. In other words, a change in the geomembrane cover slope from 2.5 to 0.0% and an increase in the geomembrane leakage fraction by one order fof magnitude will cause a decrease in the average lateral drainage rate from 177 to 13 mvyear. It is noted that with a lower leakage fraction value, the design objective for annual infiltration of 100 mum will be satisfied even if the drainage slope is reduced across the cover. ‘Another set of geomembrane cover infiltration predictions was conducted using the method proposed by Giroud and Bonaparte (1989). This method assumes thatthe water flow through the defects isthe dominating factor in infltation/leakage performance 20 (EOSYITHETIS INTERNATIONAL» 189, VOL 1, NO. 2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HDPE Geomembrane Landi Cover Performance of the geomembrane. The governing equation for the flow through a defect (hole in the geomembrane) is as follows: = CoAV2gh, @) where: Q = leakage volume through geomembrane hole; A = hole area: g = accelera- tion due to gravity: hy = liquid depth on top of geomembrane; and Cy = dimensionless coefficient, 0.6 for sharp edged orifice and Newtonian fluid. Using the above equation, the estimated leakage rate through the geomembrane cover assuming one small hole 2 mm in diameter at a frequency of one hole per 4000 m?, which is considered reasonable for a geomembrane installation with good quality control, is 13,400 and 14,000 m’/year for 2.5 and 0.0% slopes, respectively. ‘These values correspond to 53 and 56 mm/year which is lower than the maximum infiltration of 100 mm/year site criterion, specified by the regulatory agency. EFFECT OF COVER SETTLEMENT ON THE GEOMEMBRA! STRESS/STRAIN BEHAVIOR Based on the settlement plate data and review of the surface contour maps for the Stage I landfill cover, itis noted that the cover has experienced two types of settlement: large area settlements due to the cover loading and consolidation ofthe refuse due to self-weight; and, localized or differential setlement due to the variability in refuse composition, compaction and decomposition, Large area or total area settlements, ‘which are relatively uniform, will induce litle additional strain and tensile stress in the HDPE geomemirane (Bonaparte and Berg 1987; Duvall and Edwards 1992; Berg and Bonaparte 1993). However, excessive differential settlements can adversely affect the performance of the geomembrane due to the increase in tensile stress and strain (Giroud 1984; Koemer 1990; Koemer et al. 19908), The differential settlements between the crown and perimeter of the top portion of the Stage 1 cover, a distance of approximately 240 m as estimated from the contour maps of 1988 and 1992 were 0.4 to 0.6 m, that is, the crown has settled a total of about 1.0 m and the perimeter a total of about 0.5 m. The increase in tensile stress oF strain due to the differential settlement or localized settlement is examined using two models: the soil arching-tensioned membrane model developed by Giroud et al. (1990); and, the trough model that relates the depth and width of the settlement feature to the average strain in the membrane (Knipshield 1985). Estimation of the Allowable Differential/Localized Settlement Using the Soil Arching-Tensioned Membrane Model ‘The behavior of a geomembrane spanning a depression can be evaluated using the soil arching-tensioned membrane model developed by Giroud et al. (1990). The model ‘combines the soil arching theory, used to evaluate the normal stress applied on the HDPE membrane cover system by overlying fill material, with the tensioned membrane GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL» 1804, VOL 1, NO. 2 a\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomenbrane Landfill Cover Performance theory which is used to calculate the tension in the HDPE membrane due to the applied normal stress. This model can be used to evaluate whether the strains and deformations in the geomembrane system resulting from the development of a depression under the cover system are within an acceptable range. Based on the soil arching-tensioned membrane model, the tension that will be induced in the HDPE membrane cover spanning a deep depression is given by: T= a.m = 2-2 m(1 ~ 9° 05tal a) where: T = tension (force per unit width) in the geomembrane spanning @ circular depression; o — normal stress acting on geomembrane; = unit weight of die material overlying the geomembrane; r = radius of depression; tq = thickness of material overlying the geomembrane; m = dimensionless factor = (1/4) [2yr + r2yl; and y vertical deflection, In addition, the strain in the geomembrane is given by: 6) Tetovatie = hy © where: k = tensile siffness of the geomembrane in bursting mode: ¢, = strain in the eomembrane; and Tajowaiie = allowable tension in the geomembrane. ‘The above model was used to estimate the mani differential setlement and tensile strain in the geomembrane. Figure 5 presents the relationship between the radius of depression (due to differential settlement) and the tensile stress in the geomembrane cover. The strain at yield and break modes for the HDPE geomembrane are approxi mately 10 and 30%, respectively, and the tensile stiffness in the burst mode is assumed as 100 kN/m. Based on the available tensile strength at yield and at break (from the manufacturer's quality control test results), the corresponding maximum radii of depression are 2 and 3.5 m, respectively. However the calculated allowable geomem- brane tension (Trova) atthe yield strain is estimated to be 10 kN/m: ie. from Figure 5, the maximum allowable radius of depression is 1.4 to 1.6 m, without increasing the tensile strain above the yield point. The potential for the formation of a localized depression radius of about 1.4 to 1.6 m was unlikely, particularly where appliance disposal in this landfill is prokibited, Estimation of the Allowable Differential/Localized Settlement Using the Trough Model ‘The strain induced in the HDPE geomembrane cover can be estimated using a simple trough model that relates the depth and width of the settlement feature to the average strain in the geomembrane. Knipshield (1985) has suggested that the strain given by m2 EOSWTHETCS WTERNATIONAL« 004, VOL, NO. 2WARITH, SMOLKI AND CALDWELL + HDPE Geomembrane Lancil Cover Performance 80 5 = 60 i € 2 40. 3 Z 20 = @. 0 2 4 6 8 10 Radius of depression (m) igure 5. Relationship between radius of depression and tension in the HDPE geomembrane. the trough model should be reduced to reflect the additional elongation that occurs in the geomembrane immediately adjacent to the trough. This additional deformable length x is given by: ” where: x = additional elongation of geomembrane adjacent to trough; f; strength at yield of the HDPE membrane; 1, normal stress acting on geomembrane; and f, soil and the geomembrane. ‘The approximate strain (¢,) in percent at the yield stress can be calculated as follows: the tensile the geomembrane thickness; 0, = the friction coefficient between the +x) | x Ea +x 1) % 1008 LD where: Li = 1/2 length of depression; Ly = (Liq + Ah?)'; and Aha: = maximum settlement of depression. “The above model canbe used to estimate the amount of localized settlement required to cause elongation to reach the yield point of a 1 mm (40 mil) HDPE geomembrane ‘GEOSYATHETICS INTERNATIONAL «1654, VOL 1,NO.2 213\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL + HOPE Geomembrane nl Cover Performance ‘Settlement (m) Depression width (m) Figure 6. Relationship between depression width and settlement of the landfill cover. (approximately 10% strain). The settlement predictions are presented in Figure 6 as a function of the width of the hypothetical depressions. Two conditions have been assumed: (1) only the geomembrane in the depression elongates; and, (2) the geomem- brane in the depression and for some distance beyond the depression (x) is free to clongate. ‘The results indicated that at 10% strain, a depression width of 8 to 10 m corresponds to a vertical settlement of 1.5 to 2.5 m. This theoretical geomembrane deformation relationship is presented in Figure 6. This information indicates that a settlement ratio (ratio between depth and width of depression) of about 0.2 will cause a 10% strain in the geomembrane. However, it should be emphasized that the model outlined above assumes uniform elongation and stress distribution. It is more likely that there are stress ‘concentrations atthe depression boundaries, and therefore, in the above calculations, the vertical settlement required to stress the HDPE geomembrane would be considerably less. It's also noted that the magnitude of actual differential settlement in the landfill cover is 0.4 and 0.6 m, which is much less than the 1.5 to 2.5 m indicated by the theoretical calculations. Evaluation of Geomembrane Strain at Critical Crose-Sections Giroud et al. (1993) proposed a methodology which allows the calculation of the factor of safety on the basis of strain in the geomembrane. The methodology includes the selection of maximum allowable strain (€,ia.). and the calculation of the factor of 24 (GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL « 1684, VOL, NO. 2WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landfill Cover Performance safety based on the geomembrane effective strain. The maximum allowable strain is defined as the strain that triggers the mechanism which leads to geomembrane failure. In the case of an HDPE geomembrane the maximum allowable strain is the yield strain and should be obtained from a biaxial test that best simulates field conditions. Giroud et al. (1993) proposed the following equation to calculate the allowable biaxial strain (€aiow) fom tensile test data: Ste ny o we where: 6» = yield strain in a biaxial state of stress; é, = yield strain in a uniaxial state of stress; and » = Poisson's ratio of geomembrane equal to 0.5 for HDPE ‘membrane. Using the above equation, a uniaxial yield strain becomes 5% for an isotropic biaxial state of stress; that is éyioy equals 5%. It is noted that a uniaxial yield strain of 10% for HDPE is characteristic of the temperature range of 0 10 20°C. For temperatures of 0 to ~20°C, the uniaxial yield strain value is about 8 to 9%, and about 4 to 4.5% in the biaxial stress state. ‘The second step consists of evaluating the effective strain modified to account for strain concentrations. The average strain results from thermal contraction, settlement and lack of support beneath the geomembrane. Using the cr sections in the vicinity of settlement plates SPI and SP6, a depression radius of 0.5, to 0.6 m across a width of depression of 75 to 100 m could be considered. These ‘depressions will cause a tensile load in the geomembrane of about 2 to 3 kN/m. Using the charts given by Giroud et al. (1993), the corresponding average strain (¢,) is 0.5%. ‘Then, the strain concentration due to the combined effect of a seam and scratch next to the seam can be evaluated using the following equation: = +) (ey where: €, = effective strain; ¢, = average strain; €, = bending strain (Figure 9, Giroud et al. 1993) = 0.5 for extrusion fillet welded seam; d, = depth of scratch (0,05 mm [2 mils); and t, = thickness of geomembrane (1 mm [40 mils)). The resulting effective strain is: (10) - 05 +05) ©" Fos ‘The factor of safety (FS) is then calculated as: Fs = Sale ‘The above calculations indicate thatthe typical localized depressions which presently exist in the cover system, as exhibited by the difference in the contour elevations GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL «198, VOL, 1, NO. 2 215WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi Cover between 1988 and 1992, will not over-stress the geomembrane cover and lead to the development of additional stress. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Since the Stage I construction in 1988, the cover surface has undergone settlement associated with the compression of the underlying refuse. The as-constructed cover slope of 2.5 to 3% has been reduced to as low as 1.3% in the fattest area which is located in the southwest portion of Stage 1. This decrease in the cover slope resulted in a slight increase in the head of water which accumulates above the geomembrane, and a corresponding decrease in the lateral drainage through the sand drain layer above the geomembrane. Although the modelling indicates that with less than a 1% drainage slope the maximum daily head has the potential to mound above the cover surface, the average daily head of water above the geomembrane will be within the cover soil layers, “Assuming that the existing leakage fraction of the HDPE membrane is not increased by the settlement of the cover, the theoretical analysis indicates that even with a shallow drainage slope, the design infiltration criterion of 100 mm/year will be satisfied. However, ifthe leakage fraction were to increase by a factor of 10 the analysis indicates, that the annual leakage rate could increase to approximately 250 mm/year. The ability of the Stage 1 final cover to meet the design infiltration criterion is therefore not very sensitive to the decrease in drainage slope but is sensitive to the tensile stress induced in the HDPE geomembrane as a result of localized or differential settlement. Increase in geomembrane tensile stress is associated with the magnitude of differen- tial settlements between various areas of Stage 1, and not with the total settlements which have occurred since 1988. Based on the cover surface contours, the maximum localized differential settlements are shown to be about 0.5 to 0.6 m across widths of depressions which are typically 75 to 100 m. Theoretical modelling of the development of tensile stress in a geomembrane for various configurations of depressions indicates that depressions (differential settlements) of about 1.5 to 2.5 m over a distance of 8 to 10 m would be required to stress the 1 mm thick (40 mil) HDPE geomembrane to a yield condition. Evaluation of strains in the | mm thick HDPE geomembrane corresponding to the depressions which have developed in the Stage 1 landfill cover since 1988, indicate that a factor of safety of approximately 2 exists between the ‘maximum allowable strain at yield and the effective strain in the geomembrane. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ‘The authors are grateful to Mrs. M. Harrold, Mr. P. Lefebvre and Mr. K. Watson of the Regional Municipality of Owawa-Carleton for their input to this paper. 216 {ECOSYITETICS TERNATIONAL «199, VOL, NO 2WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HOPE Geomembrane Landi Cover Performance REFERENCES Bonaparte, R. and Berg, R.R., 1987, “Long-term Allowable Tension for Geosynthetic Reinforcements", Proceedings of Geosynthetics ’87, Vol. 1, IFAI, New Orleans, LA, USA, pp. 181-192. Berg, RR. and Bonaparte, R.. 1993, “Long-term Allowable Tensile Stresses for Polyethylene Geomembranes", Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 12, No. 4, Pp. 287-306, Duvall, DE. and Edwards, D.B., 1992, “Creep and Stress Rupture Testing of Polyethylene Sheet Under Equal Biaxial Tensile Stresses", Proceedings of the Society of Plasties Engineers 50th Annual Technical Conference, Society of Plastic Engineers, CT, USA, pp. 128-131 Bail, T.B., Ranguette, VJ. and Woellner, W.W., 1990, “Settlement of Municipal Refuse”, Geotechnics of Waste Fills—Theory and Practice, ASTM, STP 1070, Arvid Landava and G. David Knowles, Eds., pp. 225-239. Gibson, PR. and Lo, KY., 1961, “A Theory of Soil Exhibiting Secondary ‘Compression”, Acta Polytechnica Scandinavia, C, 10, 196, pp. 225-239 Giroud, J.P., 1984, “Analysis of Stresses and Elongations in Geomembranes”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Geomembranes, Vol. 2, RILEM, Pais, France, pp. 481-506. Giroud, JP. and Bonaparte, R., 1989, “Leakage Through Liners Constructed with ‘Geomembranes. Part I-Geomembrane Liners”, Geotextles and Geomembranes, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 27-67. Giroud, 1P., Bonaparte, R., Beech IF. and Gross, B.A., 1990, “Design of Soil Layer- ‘geosynthetic System Overlying Voids”, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol.9, No. 1, pp. 11-50. Giroud LP., Soderman, K.L. and Monroe, M., 1993, “Mechancal Design of Geomembrane Applications”, Proceedings of Geosynthetics '93, Vol. 3, IFAL, ‘Vancouver, Canada, pp. 1455-1468. Kipshield, F.W., 1985, “Material Selection and Dimensioning of Geomembranes for Groundwater Protection”, Waste and Refuse, Schmidt Publisher, Vol. 22. Koemer, RM., 1990, “Designing with Geosynthetics”, 2nd edition, Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 652 p. Koemer, RM. Koemer, GP. and Hwu, B.L., 19902, “Three-dimensional, ‘Axisymmetric Geomembrane Tension Test", Geosynthetic Testing for Waste Containment Applications (STP 1081), Ed. RM. Koerner, ASTM, Philadelphia, PA, USA, pp. 170-184. Koemer, RM., Halse, Y.H. and Lord, A.E., 1990b, “Long-term Durability and Aging ‘of Geomembranes”, Waste Containment Systems: Construction, Regulation, and Performance, ASCE. Geotechnical Special Publication No. 26, Proceedings of a symposium held in San Francisco, CA, USA, November 1990, pp. 106-134. ‘GEOSYNTHETICS INTERRATIONAL +198, VOL 1, NO. 2 27\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALDWELL + HDPE Geomenbrane Landi Cover Petormance Metry, A.A., 1982, “Containment and Evaluation of Hazardous Waste Disposal”, Hazardous Waste Management for the 80's, Ann Arbour Science Publications, Ann Arbour, Michigan, pp. 315-342, Schroeder, P-R., Gibson A.C. and Smolen, M.D., 1983, “The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model. User's Guide for Version 1", EPA/S30/SW- 84-009, 1, Environmental Protection Agency Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA. NOTATIONS Basic SI units are given in parentheses. = hole area (m*) = primary compressibility parameter (1/Pa) = secondary compressibility parameter (1/Pa) = Eh; (dimensionless) = dimensionless coefficient, 0.6 for sharp edged orifice and Newtonian fluid = depth of scratch (m) = infikration through cover (mvs) = the friction coefficient between soil and geomembrane = the lense strength at yield of the HDPE membrane (Pa) acceleration due to gravity (9.81 mvs?) average daily head (mm) initial height of refuse (m) liquid depth on top of geomembrane (m) tensile stiffness of the geomembrane in bursting mode (N/m) = hydraulic conductivity (m/s) = drainage distance (m) = leakage fraction = 12 length of depression (m) = (Cin + Any! (my = dimensionless factor = (1/4)[2y/r + rf2y) = leakage volume through geomembrane hole (m?) = radius of depression (m) = slope of sand drain (%) = tension (force per unit width) in the geomembrane spanning a circular depression (Nim) Tatowese = allowable tension in the geomembrane (Nim) pore ra D ame poor ms ond & Nox Rs 18 [GCOSYATHTICS INTERNATIONAL 1994, VOL. 4,NO.2\WARITH, SMOLKIN AND CALOWELL + HDPE Geomemtrane Landfill Cover Performance ' = time since load application (seconds) B thickness of geomembrane (m) tn ickness of material overlying the geomembrane (mn) x additional elongation of geomembrane adjacent to trough (m) y vertical deflection (m) ‘Mbpar = maximum settlement of depression (m) Ah = settlement (m) Ao & erage strain (dimensionless) Conobie = maximum allowable strain (dimensionless) & bending strain (dimensionless) a effective strain (dimensionless) = strain in the geomembrane (dimensionless) 6 = approximate strain at yield stress (dimensionless) 6» eld strain in a biaxial state of stress (dimensionless) be vyield strain in a uniaxial state of stress (dimensionless) y init weight of material overlying geomembrane (N/m?) Mo rate of secondary compression (I/seconds) o normal stress acting on geomembrane (Pa) Poisson's ratio of geomembrane ‘GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL» 18, VOL 1, NO.2 19