Investigation of Functionality of Landfill Liner Systems Under Wet Zone Climatic Conditions in Sri Lanka (original) (raw)
Related papers
Waste Management & Research, 2012
Compacted clay liners (CCLs) when feasible, are preferred to composite geosynthetic liners. The thickness of CCLs is typically prescribed by each country's environmental protection regulations. However, considering the fact that construction of CCLs represents a significant portion of overall landfill construction costs; a performance based design of liner thickness would be preferable to 'one size fits all' prescriptive standards. In this study researchers analyzed the hydraulic behaviour of a compacted clayey soil in three laboratory pilot scale columns exposed to high strength leachate under simulated landfill conditions. The temperature of the simulated CCL at the surface was maintained at 40 ± 2 °C and a vertical pressure of 250 kPa was applied to the soil through a gravel layer on top of the 50 cm thick CCL where high strength fresh leachate was circulated at heads of 15 and 30 cm simulating the flow over the CCL. Inverse modelling using HYDRUS-1D indicated that the hydraulic conductivity after 180 days was decreased about three orders of magnitude in comparison with the values measured prior to the experiment. A number of scenarios of different leachate heads and persistence time were considered and saturation depth of the CCL was predicted through modelling. Under a typical leachate head of 30 cm, the saturation depth was predicted to be less than 60 cm for a persistence time of 3 years. This approach can be generalized to estimate an effective thickness of a CCL instead of using prescribed values, which may be conservatively overdesigned and thus unduly costly.
Performances of Landfill Liners under Dry and Wet Conditions
Geotechnical and Geological Engineering, 2011
This paper addresses the study conducted on the performance of landfill liner interface parameters. Interface shear strength parameters for various combinations of 9 different lining materials were studied and presented in this paper. This comprehensive testing program covers the interfaces between:
Performances of Landfill Liners Under Optimum Moisture Conditions
Electronic Journal of …, 2008
This paper addresses the study conducted on the performance of landfill liner interface parameters. Interface shear strength parameters for various combinations of 12 different lining materials were studied and presented in this paper. This comprehensive testing program covers the interfaces between: 1) soil and compacted clay liner (CCL), 2) geomembrane (HDPEs or PVC) and soil, 3) geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) / CCL and soil, 4) geomembrane and geotextile, 5) geotextile and soil, 6) geotextile and GCL / CCL, and 7) geomembrane and GCL / CCL. The experiments were conducted under optimum moisture condition. Tabulated summaries of interface test results under optimum moisture condition are presented in the paper.
Canadian Geotechnical Journal, 2018
Design and construction of a mineral barrier layer involve many experimental and technological aspects. A specific soil water content and laboratory compaction energy, which are required to obtain permeability values according to the national regulation in force, must be determined. It is also necessary to control water content, compaction energy, and permeability of the liner actually compacted in situ. This paper shows how a compacted mineral barrier mainly composed of silty clay soil (the excavated soil is a natural but potentially re-usable waste product) was put in place to cover a large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and compacted using a heavy dumper, capable of achieving an adequate compaction degree. The in situ hydraulic properties of the liner were compared with those obtained by laboratory testing and to the limits imposed by the Italian regulation. The actual compaction degree was checked by in situ tests. Hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out in situ, usi...
Canadian Geotechnical Journal
Design and construction of a mineral barrier layer involve many experimental and technological aspects. A specific soil water content and laboratory compaction energy, which are required to obtain permeability values according to the national regulation in force, must be determined. It is also necessary to control water content, compaction energy, and permeability of the liner actually compacted in situ. This paper shows how a compacted mineral barrier mainly composed of silty clay soil (the excavated soil is a natural but potentially re-usable waste product) was put in place to cover a large municipal solid waste (MSW) landfill and compacted using a heavy dumper, capable of achieving an adequate compaction degree. The in situ hydraulic properties of the liner were compared with those obtained by laboratory testing and to the limits imposed by the Italian regulation. The actual compaction degree was checked by in situ tests. Hydraulic conductivity tests were carried out in situ, usi...
Landfill Liners Stability Assessment using Interface Parameters
Landfill liner stability assessment using interface shear strength parameters have been a tedious testing and analysis process. The current testing procedures are based on ASTM testing guideline and basic fundamental engineering testing philosophies. Hence there is need for much ideal testing equipment which can perform the entire test series required for landfill liner parameter evaluations. The equipment are required to perform interface test between 1) soil and soil (CCLs), 2) geomembrane (HDPEs and PVC) and soil, 3) geosynthetic (GCLs) / compacted clay liners (CCLs) and soil, 4) geomembrane and geotextile, 5) geotextile and soil, 6) geotextile and geosynthetic (GCLs) / compacted clay liners (CCLs), 7) geomembrane and geosynthetic (GCLs) / compacted clay liners (CCLs). Having such high requirement and testing complexity for landfill liner system, this paper addresses the modification adopted to a large scale shear box in order to perform the above said interface tests. The modified large scale shear box was used to study interface performance of various combination of liners. Test data were compiled into a landfill model to study the stability performance of landfill liners under static and seismic loading to identify suitable liner configuration for both single and composite liner systems. The data from analysis results are compiled as quick reference guide for engineers involved in landfill liner design and maintenance. Details of laboratory test data and analysis results will be presented herewith. 4 TESTING APPARATUS Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-1 DESCRIPTION CASES Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-3 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-2 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 2E-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 2D-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 2C-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 2B-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 2A-1 Slope height of 10m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 1H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-3 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 2H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-2 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.25 Case 1E-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.20 Case 1D-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.15 Case 1C-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.10 Case 1B-1 Slope height of 30m with 135m length with back slope angle of 3H:1V and seismic coefficient of 0.00 Case 1A-1 DESCRIPTION CASES
A COMPREHENSIVE REVI MATERIALS A COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF DIFFERENT ATERIALS AS LINERS IN LANDFILLS
This paper is made to showcase and review the various researches which have been done on landfill liner materials. A variety of materials have been tested and experimented for its usefulness as a landfill liner material by many researches. The use of compacted clay liners was started three decades ago. Some geosynthetic materials like geomembranes w shows better performance in the matter of less permeability and better crack resistance. But what makes the researchers to continue finding more suitable materials is that in exploring a material which ful and at the same timecost effective. In recent years many researchers are working on paper pulp sludge, straw fibres and bagasse ash and found them veryimpressive in their performances as good liner materials. Bentonite, d soils useful in liner construction, is little bit expensive. But when used in small proportions with commonly available soils like laterite can replace most of all the conventional clay liners. Pozzolanic soils like metakaolin an important alternative when used along with the conventional liner systems in strongly resisting the penetration of rainwater and leachates and preventing them from entering the groundwater. This paper is made to showcase and review the various researches which have ll liner materials. A variety of materials have been tested and experimented for its usefulness as a landfill liner material by many researches. The use of compacted clay liners was started three decades ago. Some geosynthetic materials like geomembranes were also introduced in due course of time since it shows better performance in the matter of less permeability and better crack resistance. But what makes the researchers to continue finding more suitable materials is that in exploring a material which fulfils all the standard requirements and at the same timecost effective. In recent years many researchers are working on paper pulp sludge, straw fibres and bagasse ash and found them veryimpressive in their performances as good liner materials. Bentonite, despite being one of the best soils useful in liner construction, is little bit expensive. But when used in small proportions with commonly available soils like laterite can replace most of all the conventional clay liners. Pozzolanic soils like metakaolin have marked their place as an important alternative when used along with the conventional liner systems in strongly resisting the penetration of rainwater and leachates and preventing them from entering the groundwater. This paper is made to showcase and review the various researches which have ll liner materials. A variety of materials have been tested and experimented for its usefulness as a landfill liner material by many researches. The use of compacted clay liners was started three decades ago. Some geosynthetic ere also introduced in due course of time since it shows better performance in the matter of less permeability and better crack resistance. But what makes the researchers to continue finding more suitable fils all the standard requirements and at the same timecost effective. In recent years many researchers are working on paper pulp sludge, straw fibres and bagasse ash and found them veryimpressive in espite being one of the best soils useful in liner construction, is little bit expensive. But when used in small proportions with commonly available soils like laterite can replace most of all the have marked their place as an important alternative when used along with the conventional liner systems in strongly resisting the penetration of rainwater and leachates and preventing them
COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW OF LINER FAILURE UNDER VARIOUS INSTALLATION CONDITIONS
Landfill has become the easiest and most environmental friendly method of waste disposal. The most important component of a landfill is the insulating liner material which is used in it in order to retard the flow of leachate. However, many researchers have found that the lining system has limited (10-30years) duration. When liner fail, a variety of compounds whose concentration may be above acceptable level spread into the environment. In this study, a comprehensive review of landfill liner and its types of failure under various conditions, consequences and methodology to avoid failures are presented.
A review of geosynthetic liner system technology
Waste Management & Research, 1992
This paper presents a general review of geosynthetic liner systems design considerations. The paper emphasizes the fundamental differences between a liner and a liner system, discusses the types of liner systems that are effective in landfill applications, and discusses how the components of a liner system may vary depending on the type of application, regulatory requirements, site hydrogeologic and climatic conditions, and the availability of materials. Regarding regulatory considerations, the paper discusses how liner systems must be selected and designed in conformance with regulatory performance standards in order to ensure long-term protection of the environment, and notes that many American state regulations for municipal waste landfills include minimum design guidelines that may be inadequate to meet the state's performance standards. The two aspects of chemical compatibility-retention and resistance to chemical attack-are discussed, and a generalized approach to designing geosynthetic liner systems is presented. The paper concludes with a discussion on future needs of the discipline and the industry .