United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Hazardous Waste Engineering
Research Laboratory
Cincinnati, OH 45268
Research and Development
EPA/600/S2-88/040 Aug. 1988
&EPA Project Summary
Loading Point Puncturability
Analysis of Geosynthetic Liner
Materials
Daren L. Laine, Michael P. Miklas, Jr., and Charles H. Parr
Geomembrane liner performance
was examined in laboratory tests
subjecting polyvinyl chloride (PVC),
chlorosulfonated polyethylene
(CSPE), and high density poly-
ethylene (HOPE) materials, in two
thicknesses each, to varying pres-
sures, temperatures, and point loads.
Loads were induced by placing the
geomembrane material over trun-
cated rigid epoxy cones used as
loading points for 9.5, 19.0, and 24.5
mm heights above the sand
subgrade while arranged in three-
cone clusters and applying a hy-
drostatic load to the top side of the
liner. Constant hydrostatic loads of
17.93 kPa at 23°C and 50°C were
applied during a one-year test.
HOPE material measuring 1.5 mm
thick failed for the loading point
height of 25.4 mm above the
subgrade. After 365 days, the load-
ing pressure was increased to 60.03
kPa for an additional 30 days.
Failures were induced in 1.5-mm
HOPE for loading point heights of
19.0 and 25.4 mm and in 2.5-mm
HOPE for loading point heights of
25.4 mm. HOPE with a thickness of
1.5-mm failed for a loading point
height of 19.0 mm with a 1.5-mm
geotextile placed between the HOPE
and the loading point at 17.94-kPa
pressure and ambient temperature.
HOPE with a thickness of 2.5 mm
overlaying a 3.8-mm geotextile
failed under 60.03-kPa pressure for
a 25.4-mm loading height at the high
temperature test condition. No
materials failed when overlaid upon a
5.3-mm geotextile. Transient
pressure loading test without
geotextile support exhibited failures
caused by the maximum pressure
load attained.
The test results indicate that
moderate economic benefit may be
gained by allowing particles project-
ing up to 25.4 mm above the
subgrade to remain in a finished
surface. Finished installation cost
reductions of up to 28 percent per
hectare could result if the largest
particles in the subgrade were
comparable with the tested sizes.
Geomembrane material performance
was improved with the addition of
geotextiles, indicating a positive
cost-benefit advantage when a ge-
otextile underlay is used.
This Project Summary was
developed by EPA's Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory,
Cincinnati, OH, to announce key
findings of the research project that is
fully documented in a separate report
of the same title (see Project Report
ordering information at back).
Introduction
Geosynthetic materials are used to
provide reinforcement, drainage, filtration,
or liquid migration barriers as a part of
geotechnical engineering projects. A
geomembrane is a class of geosynthetic
material composed of an impervious
synthetic polymer, elastomer, or
plastomer placed as a liner in landfills or
surface impoundments to prevent the
migration of primary or secondary
leachates into the ground. Many of these
geomembrane materials can be
purchased either unremforced or
-------
reinforced with scrim. The typical
thickness range of geomembrane
materials is from 0.5 mm (20 mils) to 3.1
mm (120 mils).
One of the most important factors for
liner performance is the quality and
stability of the supporting subgrade over
which the geomembrane is installed.
Because geomembranes are not
designed to directly support the
overburden load caused by water, soil, or
solid-waste material placed on the liner,
the nature of the liner subgrade becomes
extremely critical. Knowledge of the
interactions between the geomembrane
and the subgrade is vital to the design of
waste storage installations. This technical
report is in direct response to SHWRD
program objectives to understand
geomembrane performance in service
environments and the related factors
which may cause liner failure. The
results of this testing program provide
valuable data for specifying
geomembrane installations for solid-
and liquid-waste disposal facilities and
suggest economic guidelines for geo-
membranes, geocomposites, and sub-
grade preparation.
Research Approach and
Procedures
The objectives of this research
program were: (1) to develop an under-
standing of the interactions between
geosynthetic materials and the sup-
porting subgrade in order to determine
what factors may lead to premature
and/or long-term geomembrane fail-
ures; and (2) to determine the economic
benefits of alternative liner installations
for landfills or surface impoundments
which may lead to technical guidelines
for the specification of the geosynthetic
materials and subgrade preparation
requirements.
Preliminary Tests
Preliminary tests were performed to
select the design and shape of the
loading points to be used in this
program. The criteria for selecting a
given load point design were:
(1) Load point represented natural load
points in texture and angularity;
(2) Load point had an easily
reproducible shape; and
(3) Load point failed geomembranes at
a fifty percent failure rate in pre-
tests.
Figure 1 shows a detailed cross-section
design of the load point that was used in
this testing program.
In addition to selecting the loading
point design, tests were conducted to
select the initial test conditions which
would simulate worst-case field
conditions, including pressure loading,
temperature, and the height above the
plane of the subgrade that the load
points protrude. A test matrix was
developed and approved.
To ensure that the materials tested
in this program met or exceeded the
physical property specifications stated
by their manufacturers, ASTM physical
property tests were conducted on each
of the subject geomembrane materials.
Table 1 lists the ASTM physical property
tests that were used to evaluate the
geomembrane materials.
Test Equipment
Long-term hydrostatic puncture-
resistance tests were conducted on PVC,
CSPE, and HOPE geomembrane
material, using two different thicknesses
for each type of material. These tests
were conducted in 36 round plastic
pressure test vessels. The vessels were
capable of withstanding pressures of up
to 103.5 kPa (15 psig) and temperatures
of 50°C (123°F). Figure 2 shows the
design detail of the pressure test vessel.
A pressure-regulated nitrogen-over-
water system was used to force the
geomembrane material onto a supporting
sand subgrade. Eighteen of the pressure
test vessels were connected to a
closed-loop hot water circulating
system for elevated temperature testing.
Three artificial load points were placed in
each test vessel to simulate an irregular
subgrade surface. The 36 pressure
13.20cm
-8.25 cm -
Figure 1.
Cross-section of the conical
loading point.
vessels were monitored for temperatu
pressure, and geomembrane failure.
constant pressure was maintained
each of the test vessels by 2 two-sta
pressure regulators connected to
17,180-kPa (2,460-psi) nitrogen g
bottle. Individual vessel temperature v\
measured by dedicated thermocoup
wired to a rotary-style thermocouj
switch. Temperature readings we
manually recorded at periodic interv
from a digital display located on t
temperature controller box. Leaks in 1
liner test specimens were detected
magnetic float switches located at t
base of each pressure vessel. Thirty-
indicator lights, mounted on ti
temperature controller unit, were wired
the individual magnetic float switches. I
leak occurred in the geomembrane, wal
would flow through the hole and woi
accumulate, activating the float swit
and indicator light. Approximately 10
of water were required to activate tl
switch and indicator light. Daily logs we
recorded for each of the 36 pressure te
vessels.
Economic Analysis
Cost data were collected on each
the three types of polymeric materic
tested and on three thicknesses
geotextiles. The majority of cost da
were collected by telephone interviev
with specialists involved on a day-t
day basis with geomembrane tin
installation estimates. Publications we
used primarily for verification ar
corroboration.
The cost data were used
conjunction with the pressure test data
establish the relative expenses fi
installing the different types of materia
over differing subgrades. Charts ar
tables were created to present the da
with clarity The analysis results provic
a comparison of the costs associate
with different combinations of lin<
materials and subgrade conditions.
matrix was developed to facilitate co
comparisons between the various lin<
combinations and subgrade finishes.
Results and Discussions
Laboratory tests were conducted
determine the failure mechanisms <
geomembrane materials placed over i
irregular subgrade and subjected to
constant hydrostatic load of 17.93 kPa fi
365 days. The failures during the lov
pressure tests are shown in Table 2. Tr
1 5-mm (60-mil) HOPE was the onl
tested synthetic material to fail to th
limit of water leakage in less than 36
days when subjected to hydrostatic loac
-------
Table 1. ASTM Tests on Subject Geomembrane Material
Properly
Specific gravity
Tear strength
Tensile properties including
breaking factor
Hydrostatic resistance
Puncture resistance
FML material
HOPE (1.5 mm & 2.5 mm)
PVC (0.5 mm & 1.0 mm)
HOPE (1.5 mm & 2.5 mm)
PVC (0.5 mm & 1.0 mm)
CSPE (0.9 mm & 1.1 mm)
PVC (0.5 mm & 1.0 mm)
HOPE (1.5 mm & 2.5 mm)
CSPE (0 9 mm & 1. 1 mm)
HOPE, PVC, and CSPE
(2 thicknesses each)
HOPE, PVC, and CSPE
(2 thicknesses each)
ASTM test
D792, Method A
0792, Method A
01 004, Die C
D751, Method Ba
D882, Method A or B
0638
075), Method Ab
075? (Mullen)
FTMS 101C,
Method 2065
Temperature °C
23
23
23, 50
23, 50
23, 50
23, 50
23, 50
23
23, 50
a With 8-in. x 8-m. test specimens.
b Grab method
of 17.94 kPa (2.6 psig) with load point
heights of 25.40 mm (1 0 in.). The 1.5-
mm (60-mil) HOPE material failed after (2)
148 days of continuous testing at 17.93
kPa (2.6 psig). Figure 3 shows Sample
13, 1.5-mm HOPE, which failed. For
verification purposes, another specimen
of 1 5-mm HOPE was tested and failed (3)
after 60 days at ambient temperature,
1794 kPa, and 25.4-mm load height.
The failed verification sample is shown in (4)
Figure 4.
Polyethylene is one of several
plastics which exhibit a marked plastic
flow and necking at high load levels.
Under some conditions, the failure
elongation is more than ten times (1000 (5)
percent strain).
In the prominent failure of 1.5-mm
HOPE, Sample No. 13, the following
interpreted sequence of events occurred:
(1) As the sheet was pressed down on
the cone, a general stretching of the (6)
material occurred within a radial
distance of approximately 50.8 mm
around the cone.
Near the apex, a localized stress
concentration caused elongation of
the polyethylene into the necking
region of behavior in the direction of
the line of symmetry of the cone.
At this stage, the elongation in the
direction perpendicular to the line of
symmetry remained small.
The elongation continued until
necking ended. At this point, the wall
had thinned to about 0.25 mm. This
corresponds with a strain of about
550 percent if the lateral strains are
still small.
Because of the flow during necking,
considerable alignment of polymer
chains caused stiffening, which
strengthened the polymer in the flow
direction but reduced the polymer
strength in the transverse direction.
Continued downward tension over
the cone increased the elongation
Water
Outlet
Thermocouple -
Air ^
In/Out
50. SO cm
Air Pressure
Gauge
ABS Vessel
Water
Inlet
25.40cm
Double
Neoprene
Gaskets
Geomembrane
Specimen
Fine Sand -
Cone
35° W/
45° Truncation
at Top
Drain Valve ~*BS Vessel
- Float Switch
Figure 2. Cross-section drawing of the hydrostatic pressure vessel.
and stress in the transverse
direction. Because the strength in
this direction was compromised,
fractures occurred.
This failure mode is a complex
process involving a nonlinear thermo-
viscoelastic material with an intricate
loading history. Loading conditions
changed from stress-type to dis-
placement-type loading during the test.
The stress and displacement fields are
two-dimensional and vary with time in
each direction. The failure of the 1.5-
mm HOPE appears to be a normal failure
in that the loading simply extended the
material beyond its capability.
Characteristically, materials which are
biaxially stressed fail at strain levels
considerably lower than the failure strain
limit in uniaxial tests. SEM examination
confirmed that the 1.5-mm HOPE
experienced a simple overload failure
caused by the stress concentration at the
apex of the point loading cone.
The thickness of the unstressed
portions of the HOPE test specimens
were found to vary significantly. Six
thickness readings on Sample No. 13
varied from 1.40 mm to 1.62 mm, with an
average thickness of 1.47 mm. The
thickness of Sample No. 15 varied from
1.47 mm to 1.70 mm, with an average of
1.65 mm. Commercial sheeting of the
type tested has a specified thickness
tolerance of 10 percent or, in this case,
0.15 mm, so that, except for one point,
the sheets were within tolerance. Note,
however, that the bending stiffness of the
sheet varies with the cube of the
thickness. Therefore, based upon the
measured average thicknesses, Sample
No. 15 is 40 percent stiffer than Sample
No. 13. This relative increase in stiffness
may explain why Sample No. 15 failed to
a lesser extent than Sample No. 13, even
though the test temperature was higher.
-------
Mate
Type
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
trial
mm
1.5
1.5
1.5
Sample GeofexMe
No. mm
24
15
13
Temp.
"C
23
23
50
Press.
kPa
17.94
17.94
17.94
Time
days
60
148
148
Load height
mm
25.40
25.40
25.40
Obviously, this thickness variation is a
real-world effect and must be
considered when assessing the behavior
of geomembrane liners.
In addition to the failures displayed
by the HOPE material, partial failures
were noted in the 0.9-mm and 1.1-mm
CSPE tested at 17.94 kPa for 155 day
with load point heights of 25.4 mm. A
partial failure is defined as a failure that
does not compromise the capacity of the
liner material to prevent water flow
through the membrane to the subgrade.
After the partial failures were noted, the
hydrostatic pressure tests were
continued for an additional 210 days. At
the end of this testing period, the
pressure was increased to 60.03 kPa for
an additional 30 days of testing.
A microscopic study was made of
the partial failure area of Sample No. 64,
which was 1.1-mm CSPE material with
scrim reinforcement. The scrim is made
from rugged 10 x 10 1000 denier
polyester yarn. The partial failure was
directly over one of the load points that
was 25.4 mm above the subgrade, and
the material had been stressed to a
maximum pressure of 60.03 kPa for 30
days, resulting in tearing of the lower
side of the sheet and scrim breakage in
two places. The breakage is shown in
Figure 5. Note the buckled shape of the
entire area, indicating that the CSPE
and/or scrim had been stretched beyond
its elastic limit. Figure 6 shows a close-
up view of the broken fiber shown on the
right in Figure 5. The fiber break itself is
unremarkable, but the striated area
above it, which appears to be almost
fibrous in nature, is a lineation which
commonly occurs in plastic flow areas of
Figure 3. SEM of failure (21X); Sample No. 13 1.5-mm HOPE.
Note: Striations (A) and edge of drawn region IB).
polymers. A photograph of the s
pattern is shown in Figure 7
roughened appearance of the C
surface directly above the fibers
indicate that the CSPE and scrim \
stretched beyond the elastic limit of
CSPE material. After removal of the I
the fibers snapped back, putting
plastically deformed CSPE i
compression. This compression rest
in local buckling of the CSPE. The C
material was overstressed whe
hydrostatic load of 17.94 kPa was apr.
to the material over a 25.4-mm I
point. The applied force caused the Ic
CSPE material layers to tear and
internal scrim to break.
At the completion of 365 day;
low-pressure testing, the hydrost
pressure was increased at a rate of
kPa per hour until a pressure of 61
kPa was achieved. This test press
was maintained constant for an additi
30 days. The materials that failed
high-pressure testing are listed in T;
3. The results of these tests indicate
the HOPE 1 5-mm and HOPE 2.5-
materials failed at 23°C and 50°C
cone heights of 19.0 mm and 25.4
above the subgrade. As previoi
discussed for other field samples, th
failures are normal events in which
material was stressed beyond its ela
limit until failure occurred.
Of particular interest during
accelerated high-pressure tests was
accumulation of excessive water in
pressure test vessel containing Sanr
No. 76, PVC 0.5-mm, at 23°C witl
cone height of 19.0 mm. The excess
water accumulation led to speculai
that the PVC liner material had leaks,
a casual inspection of the mate
identified no apparent punctures.
Only after an intense inspection w
five pin-size holes found. These he
could only be seen when an intense I
source cast illumination directly ber
the hole. The holes were located near
edges of the sheet and not near the o
points; therefore, the areas were
highly stressed. It is suggested that
-------
Figure 4. View of verification test failure on HDP£ 1.5-mm Sample No. 24.
holes might have been manufacturing
imperfections in the sheet. Additional
visual inspection of the entire liner
surface revealed three rows of pits in the
surface of the sheet. These pits reduced
the load-carrying capacity of the PVC
membrane. However, there was no
evidence found during optical or SEM
inspection that there was any connection
between these pits in the material and
the pinhole failures.
Transient pressure loading tests
were conducted by placing new samples
of geomembrane material into the test
Figure S. Scrim breakage on 1.1 -mm CSPE after loading at 25.4 mm (W2X).
vessels and applying pressure at a rate
of 55.2 kPa per hour until the final test
pressure of 60.03 kPa was achieved. The
final pressure of 60.03 kPa was held
constant for 24 hours. Load point heights
of 25.4 mm, 19.0 mm, and 9.5 mm were
used at ambient- and high-tem-
perature exposures.
The results of these transient
pressure loading tests are presented in
Table 4. The CSPE 1.1-mm and HOPE
1.5-mm materials failed the test at a
pressure of 60.03 kPa with a loading
point height of 25.4 mm and a
temperature of 50°C. Figure 8 shows the
failure of the 1.1-mm CSPE material,
and Figure 9 shows the failure of the
1.5-mm HOPE material.
The HOPE 2.5-mm material failed
at a temperature of 23°C at the final
pressure of 60.03 kPa and a loading point
height of 25.4 mm and is shown m Figure
10. Examination of the failure areas with
an optical microscope indicated that the
failures were normal, resulting from
overstressmg the geomembrane material
in the region of the point load.
Tests using geotextile materials were
conducted to evaluate the mechanical
advantages of a composite liner
configuration versus a geomembrane
liner material without a protective
underlining of geotextile material. A
typical composite liner was modeled by
placing the geotextile material between
the load points and the geomembrane
material. Those geomembranes which
failed the short-term tests, accelerated
tests, and the impact load tests were
used in this test sequence. Continuous-
filament polyester nonwoven needle-
punched geotextiles having thicknesses
of 1.5 mm (60 mil), 3.8 mm (150 mil), and
5.8 mm (230 mil) were tested. Woven
geotextiles were not evaluated because
of their limited use in current liner
installation practice. The geomembrane
materials tested were HOPE 1.5-mm,
HOPE 2.5-mm, CSPE 1.1-mm, and
CSPE 0.09-mm. Testing was conducted
at 23 °C and 50 °C for a cone height of
25.4 mm.
The results of the composite material
tests are presented in Table 5. Tests at
ambient temperature on the 1.5-mm
HOPE liner material combined with a
1.5-mm geotextile at 60.03 kPa caused
failure to occur at 210 days. The HOPE
2.5-mm material combined with a 3.8-
mm geotextile failed at 50°C and 60.08
kPa after 60 days of testing. The failure
mode of the HOPE, in both cases, was a
normal failure caused by over-stress on
the liner material at the loading point.
-------
Figure 6. Close-up of broken scrim fibers 1.5 mm CSPE (SOX)
The CSPE material did not fail when
a geotextile was placed between the
membrane and the load points, and there
was no evidence of scrim separation
such as that observed in test samples
tested without a protective geotextile
material.
Tables 6 and 7 illustrate the
probable costs associated with the
installation of tested geomembranes and
geotextile materials. Based upon the
pressure loading test results, certain
composite combination costs are not
listed because the subject liner material
Figure 7. Close-up of scrim pattern; 1.1 -mm CSPE (11.5X).
failed under the given situations stal
(Example: HOPE material of 1.5-1
thickness should not be used or
subgrade in which particles exceec
height of 3.5 mm above the plane of
iubgrade preparation to varying level:
fineness based on the maximum size;
particles which are allowed to remair
the surface plane of the subgrade.
It is not recommended that any
the liner installation options be utilizec
lieu of others based solely on c
considerations. The cost figures
intended to quickly convey exper
information concerning each option wl
providing the reader with the relal
confidence offered by an appropri
subgrade finish. A given site nr
"require" only a 0.5-mm PVC mate
thickness over a 25.4-mm or It
irregular subgrade, based on the t
results and economic analysis; howev
an economically astute owner might el
to use a 3.8-mm geotextile at a gi\
facility and/or a finer finish of i
subgrade. The geotextile would make
liner system more secure and safe fr
larger particle penetration by piec
which, though absent from the mitic
prepared surface, might work their v
upwards through the subgrade A fn
finish than 25.4-mm particle project
would reduce the ultimate potential
penetration and cause subsequent faili
during the anticipated lengthy (usually
years or more) life of the facility
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Geocomposites (geomembrane p
geotextile) have a mechanical advantc
in improved performance over g«
membranes alone The econonr
advantage of using a composite syst<
is associated with the improved p
formance of the geomembrane in p
venting a costly waste clean-
operation.
Further long-term testing
required to evaluate the minimi
subgrade bedding requirements I
geosynthetic liners. New tests shoi
emphasize investigations of polyethyle
material and should incorporate testing
geomembranes over other types
irregular surfaces
Geognds are synthetic, ope
weave, high-flow capacity drainage m
that are placed between tv
geomembranes to provide mcreas
drainage capacity in double-liner
stallations. Geognds are used in place
traditional natural drainage materials su
as sand or gravel and are being us
more widely in the liner industry; thi
-------
Table 3. High Pressure Failure Data on Prestressed Geomembrane
Material
Type
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
HOPE
mm
1.5
1.5
2.5
2.5
Sample Geotext/le
No. mm
6
17
39
32
Temp
°C
23
50
50
23
Press.
kPa
60.03
60.03
6003
6003
Time
days
30
30
30
30
Load height
mm
19.00
19.00
1900
2540
they should be included in future testing
of synthetic liner configurations.
Frequently, high density polythene
material is used in the construction of
brine storage impoundments and
experimental solar ponds for electrical
power generation. In both of these
applications, elevated temperatures of
greater than 95°C are encountered.
Therefore, geomembrane testing should
be extended to include temperature tests
to at least 95°C.
Additional tests should be devised to
provide insight into the relationship
between laboratory loading point
geometries and natural loading points for
more realistic failure analysis studies.
Short-term high-pressure testing, us-
ing various loading point shapes, should
be done and the results compared with
tests using natural loading points to
establish practical differences on the
mechanics of liner failure."
Figure 8. Failed CSPE 1.1 -mm for 25.4-mm loading point.
-------
Table 4
Transient Pressure Loading Failure Data
Material
Type
Sample Geotextile Temp. Press. Time Load height
No. mm °C kPa days mm
CSPE
HOPE
HOPE
1.1
1.5
2.5
91
12
25
50
50
23
60.03
60.03
60.03
25.40
25.40
25.40
Figure 9. Failed 1.5-mm HLDPE for 25.4-mm loading point.
Figure 10. Failed HOPE 2.5-mm for 25 4-mm loading point.
-------
Material Samole
Type
HOPE
HOPE
Table 6.
mm No.
1.5 <
2.5 40*
Installation Cost Matrix for
Materials including
normal cost to install -
for one hectare in unit
quantity
Geotextile Temp.
mm °C
1.5 23
3.8 50
Press. Time
kPa days
60.03 210
60.03 60
Tested Liners and Geotextiles (Costs in $1,000'S)
Subgrade with up to 25.4 Subgrade with up to 19.0
mm projection above mm projection above
plane installed plane installed
Least Confidence
Pond Depth in Meters to
Pond Depth in Meters to
Load height
mm
2540
25.40
Subgrade with up to 9.5
mm protection above
plane installed
Greatest Confidence
Pond Depth in Meters to
Material (mm) 1 hec 100 hec
1.8
6.1
1.8
6 1
1.8
6.1
CSPE 0.9
W 1.5 GEO
38 GEO
5.3 GEO
CSPE 1 1
W 1.5 GEO
3.8 GEO
53 GEO
PVC 0.5
W 1 5 GEO
3.8 GEO
5 3 GEO
PVC 1 0
W 1.5 GEO
3.8 GEO
5.3 GEO
HOPE 1 5
W 1 5 GEO
38 GEO
5.3 GEO
HDPE 2.5
W 1 5 GEO
3.8 GEO
5.3 GEO
82
97
99
106
91
106
109
116
32
42
49
57
52
59
69
77
82
91
99
106
94
106
111
119
59
67
72
79
69
77
82
89
22
32
35
42
37
42
49
57
54
62
67
74
62
67
74
94
10.4
10.4
10.4
104
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
104
104
10.4
104
NR
104
10.4
10.4
10.4
W 4
104
104
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
NR'
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
10.4
NR"
NR
10.4
104
NR"
10.4
NR
10.4
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16 1
161
16.1
16.1
16.1
161
16.1
16.1
16.1
16 1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16 1
16.1
16 1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16 1
16.1
NR
16.1
16.1
16.1
16.1
16 1
16.1
16.1
19.5
19.5
19.5
195
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
195
19.5
195
195
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
195
195
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
195
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
19.5
NR Not Recommended, liner
NR* Not Recommended: liner
NR" Not Recommended: liner
W With geotextile.
and/or geotextile/lmer combination failed at these conditions
failed impact loading tests
failed both above.
-------
Table 7. Probable Costs Associated with Composite Liner Installation
Thousands of Dollars
100 p
90 E-
80
••j wo
Hectares
• One
Hectare
PVC
05
PVC
Material MM
HOPE
1.0
1.5 CSPE 1 1 GEO 1.5 GEO
CSPE 0.9 HOPE 25 GEO 3.8
53
Daren L Laine, Michael P. Miklas, Jr., and Charles H. Parr are with Southwest
Research Institute, San Antonio, TX, 78284.
Charles J. Moench is the EPA Project Officer (see below).
The complete report, entitled "Loading Point Pun durability Analysis of
Geosynthetic Liner Materials," (Order No. PB 88-235 544/AS; Cost:
$19.95, subject to change) will be available only from:
National Technical Information Service
5285 Port Royal Road
Springfield, VA 22161
Telephone: 703-487-4650
The EPA Project Officer can be contacted at:
Hazardous Waste Engineering Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Cincinnati, OH 45268
10
-------
m 3> _
2 5 5
> 0) O
jf
^ (D
c
in
(D
CO
8
C
C
<"> ft' Jo -j
oo -< -
n
i- .ju
M )-«] 3
« y> s
:*• sr
t"s <:
o
a
o
c
5
a
C
K
O
a
•D
m
x
i
HI
01
T3
O
CO
2"
.8£
m>
mm
com
1
a
------- |