16.11.2013 Views

Technical Paper by JP Giroud, KL Soderman and K. Badu-Tweneboah

Technical Paper by JP Giroud, KL Soderman and K. Badu-Tweneboah

Technical Paper by JP Giroud, KL Soderman and K. Badu-Tweneboah

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

GIROUD et al. D Optimal Configuration of a Double Liner System<br />

1 INTRODUCTION<br />

In many l<strong>and</strong>fills <strong>and</strong> other waste containment systems where a double liner system<br />

is used, the primary liner is a geomembrane <strong>and</strong> the secondary liner is a composite liner<br />

that consists of a geomembrane on a layer of compacted clay (Figure 1a). The inverse<br />

configuration where the geomembrane-compacted clay composite liner is the primary<br />

liner <strong>and</strong> the geomembrane used alone is the secondary liner (Figure 1b) is rarely considered<br />

because: (i) compaction of the clay could damage the geomembrane used as the<br />

secondary liner (<strong>and</strong> the geonet, if one is used in the secondary leachate collection layer);<br />

<strong>and</strong> (ii) regulations often prescribe the first configuration.<br />

Geosynthetic clay liners (GCLs) are increasingly used instead of compacted clay in<br />

composite liners. GCLs are usually installed with light equipment that should not damage<br />

the underlying geosynthetics. Therefore, when a GCL is used, both configurations<br />

can be considered: (i) the geomembrane alone as the primary liner <strong>and</strong> the geomembrane-GCL<br />

composite liner as the secondary liner (Figure 1c); <strong>and</strong> (ii) the inverse configuration<br />

(Figure 1d). A comparison between these two configurations is presented in<br />

this paper.<br />

It is realized that several criteria <strong>and</strong> approaches can be used to compare liner systems.<br />

However, only leachate migration due to advective flow of leachate through geomembrane<br />

defects is considered herein. The considered defects are defects in the geomembrane<br />

used alone as well as defects in the geomembrane component of the<br />

composite liner.<br />

The purpose of the comparison presented herein is to provide information that may<br />

be used as part of the process for selecting the optimal configuration for a double liner<br />

system.<br />

2 METHODOLOGY<br />

2.1 Approach<br />

The two double liner systems considered in the study are shown in Figure 2. For each<br />

of the two liner systems, the rate of leachate migration through the secondary liner is<br />

calculated according to the following four steps:<br />

S A given average head of leachate on top of the primary liner is considered.<br />

S The rate of leachate migration through the primary liner due to advective flow<br />

through defects in the primary liner geomembrane is calculated.<br />

S The average head of leachate on top of the secondary liner due to leachate that has<br />

migrated through the primary liner is calculated.<br />

S The rate of leachate migration through the secondary liner due to advective flow<br />

through defects in the secondary liner geomembrane is calculated.<br />

The rate of leachate migration through the secondary liner thus calculated is the rate<br />

of leachate migration into the ground.<br />

It is preferable to discuss leachate head calculation prior to discussing leachate migration<br />

calculations due to numerous references to leachate head in leachate migration cal-<br />

374 GEOSYNTHETICS INTERNATIONAL S 1997, VOL. 4, NOS. 3-4

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!