-------
QA/QC
Organizational
Structure
1.2 Responsibility and
Authority
Permitting agency
Owner/operator
Owner's representative
Design engineer
Manufacturer
Fabricator
General contractor
Installation contractor
Earthwork contractor
CQC personnel
MQA/CQA engineer
MQA/CQA personnel
Testing laboratory
MQA/CQA certifying
engineer
1.3 Personnel Qualifications
Design engineer
Owner's rep.
GS mfrJfabr.
GS installer .
CQC personnel
CQA personnel
QA engineer
PE
PE or EfT
10,000,000 ft2 (similar material)*
10,000,000 ft2 (similar material)*
certified*
certified*
separate from O/O*
Certifying engineer PE in same state
Contentious issues
-------
Contentious Issue #1
What constitutes similar material?
Why 10,000,000 ft2?
Is the 10,000,000 ft2 "good"
experience?
How do new companies get 230
acres of experience?
Contentious Issue #2
Who certifies QA/QC personnel?
How many are required per project?
What levels are required?
Can a PE be certified?
Who teaches this technology?
National Institute for Certification in
Engineering Technologies (NICET);
Sponsored by NSPE
A nonprofit organization
Has 30+ similar programs
Only administers and grades tests
12 person steering committee
Program called "Geosynthetic Materials
Installation Inspection"
Contact: NICET, 1420 King Street,
Alexandria, VA 22314, 703-684-2847
See footnote on page 7
-9-
-------
Certification of GS
Installation inspection
Current program via NICET
Subflelds are as follows:
CSPE-R VLDPE GT
PVC QCL GG
HOPE m GN B GA
Various experience levels
Level I (entry)tests ongoing
Level II (2 yr)tests ongoing
Level III (5 yr)pilot testing
Level IV (10 yr)future
Natural soils program is in development
Table 1.2 CQA Implementation Program for
Geosynthetics* (Beginning January 1,1993)
No. of End of End of
Field Crews** 18 Months 36 Months
At Each Site (i.e., June 30,1994) (i.e., January 1,1996)
1to2
3to4
25
1 - Level II
1 - Level II
1 - Level I
1 - Level II
2 - Level 1
1 - Level III***
1 - Level III***
1 - Level 1
1 - Level III***
1 - Level II
1 - Level 1
Certification (or natural materialt 1* under development
"Performing a critical operation; typically 4 to 6 people/crew
"Or PE with applicable experience
Table 1.1 CQC Implementation Program for
Geosynthetics* (Beginning January 1,1993)
No. of
Field Crews**
At Each Site
1to4
s5
End of
18 Months
(i.e., June 30, 1994)
1 - Level II
1 - Level II
2 - Level I
End of
36 Months
(i.e., January 1, 1996)
1 - Level III***
1 - Level III***
1 - Level 1
Certification (or natural materials iป under development
"Performing a critical operation; typically 4 to 6 people/crew
Or PE with applicable experience
-10-
-------
Contentious Issue #3
Can distance between O/O and QA organization
be maintained? i
"Independent" (<10% revenue)
"Third party" (<2S% ownership) i
"Separate" (a nonlegal term)
Some agencies insist on doing their own QA !
work (e.g., BuRec, COE, SCS, DOT)
Permitting agency can require financial ,
disclosure and decide accordingly
Owner has the ultimate responsibility and liability
on choice of QA organization I
1.4 Written QA Plan
Includes both MQA and CQA
Prepared by the QA organization
Submitted via O/O as a part of the
permit application
ซ Integrated with plans and specs
Always site specific
Plan should precede construction
contracttrouble otherwise
1.5 Documentation
Daily inspection reports
Daily summary reports
Inspection sheets
Problem identification and corrective
measures reports
Record drawings
Field documentation and certification
Document control
Storage of records
-11-
-------
1.6 Meetings
Prebid
Resolution
Preconstruction
Progress
Prebid Meeting
Level of effort is explained
Inspection strategy and details are
openly discussed
Allows all potential bidders to ask
questions and understand intent
Resolution Meeting
General contractor is now identified
Meeting is attended by all parties
Plans and specifications discussed
MQA/CQA plan is discussed
Unique/critical features identified
Corrective action is discussed
Modifications to QA plan are possible
-12-
-------
Preconstruction Meeting
ป Identifies the field personnel of all
parties involved
t Answers questions by all parties (O/O,
designer, QA firm, contractor, installer,
and regulator)
ป Should result in consensus agreement
B Hopefully will avoid claims, work
stoppages and will result in high
quality project
Progress Meetings
Weekly meetings are suggested
More frequent if active project
QA can call for instant meeting
Miscellaneous Items
1.7 Sample Custody
1.8 Weather
1.9 Work Stoppages
-13-
-------
Summary
QA/QC is part of quality management
Natural soils require CQC/CQA
GSs require MQC/MQA and CQC/CQA
Both require knowledge of:
Test methods
Sampling strategies
Each item of work
Each phase of project
Written QA plan is critical
-14-
-------
2. Soil Liners
2.1 Background
2.2 Critical Construction Variables
2.3 Water Content & Density Measurement
2.4 Borrow Source Characterization
2.5 Borrow Source Inspection
2.6 Preprocessing of Soil
2.7 Placement of Loose Lift
2.8 Remolding and Compacting Soil
2.9 Protection of Liner
2.10 Test Pads
2.11 Final Approval
2.1 Background
Liners built in layers called "lifts"
Soil called "borrow material"
Types of soils:
Natural soil
Soil/bentonite blend
Other blends
Liners called:
Compacted soil liner
Compacted clay liner
Uses of soil liners
Single Composite Liner
Composite
liner '
Low-permeability
com peeled ซoU
liner
i -15-
-------
Double Composite Liner
Primary
composite
liner
task detection
Secondary
composite
liner
Fig. 2.1 (b)
'Gaonwmbrana
Low-otrmtabllity
'completed soil
liwrorGCL
'Solloroaouxtltofllur
Dralnaga material
(gMtynthatlc or
granular soil)
'Gaomambrara
'Low-parmaabUlty
compactad soil
llnar
Typical Cover System
'Top ซoll
Fig. 2.1 (c)
Soil or gootextllc fitter
Drainage layer
imembrane
Low-pormeabllity
compacted soil liner
orGCL
Waste
2.1.2 Critical CQC and
CQA Issues
Materials must be suitable
Materials must be:
Properly placed
Properly compacted
Liner must be protected
-16-
-------
2.1.4 Compaction Curve
Water content (w):
Weight of water
w=
x100%
Oven-dry weight of soil
Dry unit weight (yd):
Oven-dry weight
Yd = -~~^^~~^"^~
Total volume
(Ib/ft3 = pcf; kN/m3)
(62.4 pcf = 9.81 kN/m3)
(unit weight vs. density)
Compaction Curve
Dry unit
weight
(Yd)
Fig. 2.3
Zero ซlr void* curve
* Optimum
water
J conttnt
Molding wtttr conUnt
2.1.4.2 Compaction Tests
(See Table 2.1)
Standard proctor (12,375 fHb/ft3)
Modified proctor (56,250 ft-lb/ft3)
-17-
-------
2.1.4.3 Percent Compaction
P=-xioo%
Yd,
max
Key Compaction Controls
Optimum water content (wopt)
Maximum dry unit weight (yd, max)
2.1.4.4 Estimating
W0pt & Yd, max
Conventional test takes
several days
Quick estimators:
Subjective assessment
One-point compaction test
Three-point compaction test
-18-
-------
Dry unit
weight
Previously
developed
compaction curve
Fig. 2.4
Data point
Result of one-
point compaction
test
Previously
developed
compaction curve
Water content
Dry unit
weight
E>tlmซ>d
Yd, max
Previously
developed
compaction curve
Rg. 2.4
Interpretation
of data
Result of one-point
compaction test
Assumed compaction
curve
Previously
developed
compaction curve
E*t!mXซl wopt
Water content
2.1.4.5 Water Content-
Density Specification
ซ Specify range of water content
and minimum dry unit weight
Specify acceptable zone
(recommended)
-19-
-------
Dry unit
weight^,,)
Yd, i,
'd,max
Fig. 2.5
Zero air voids curve
Acceptable zone
Molding water content (w)
Dry unit
weight
Fig. 2.6 (A)
Molding water content
Dry weight
unit
(B)
Fig. 2.6 (B)
Molding water content
-------
Dry unit
weight
Acceptable
zone
Fig. 2.6 (C)
Molding water content
Dry unit
weight
Acceptable
zone
Fig. 2.6 (D)
Molding water content
Dry unit
weight
Acceptable woe
based on ahear
i criterion
Fig. 2.7
Overall acceptable lone
beaed on all criteria
Acceptable xone
baaed on hydraulic
conductivity criterion
Molding water content
-21-
-------
2.2 Critical Construction
Variables
Material properties
Plasticity index (>10%)
Percent fines (#200 sieve, >30%)
Percent gravel (#4 sieve, <20% to 50%)
Max. particle size (<25 mm to 50 mm)
Clay content (should not be stipulated)
Clod size (important for dry, hard clods)
2.2 Critical Construction
Variables
, For soii-bentonite blends
Type of bentonite
Sodium or calcium bentonite
Natural sodium or sodium-treated
Quality of bentonite
Additives such as polymers
Grain size (powdered, granular)
Percent of bentonite in mix
Fig. 2.1 3
10-*,
10-'
Hydraulic
conductivity 10-*
10-"
10-"
V
v
"I
K^
^H
r
0 S 10 1B 20
Percent odium bentonite
-22-
-------
2.2 Critical Construction
Variables (continued)
Soil preparation
Water content
Uniformity
Dry
unit
weight
Hydraulic
conductivity
Fig. 2.14
Molding water
content
Molding water
content
2.2 Critical Construction
Variables (continued)
ป Compaction
Kneading compaction
Depth of penetration of feet
Compactive energy
Bonding of lifts
-23-
-------
Fig. 2.19
iB (M( en rotfcr
compact bซM of DM*, toocc MR of
ott Mo ซuf MM oC oW, pr*riou*ly
Pvtiy pmfrrtng fnt en rottw do
not wtmd to bwซ o( nwr, IOOM
Hft of BOB M\4 do not oompaet nwr
HRIntaซjrfaMOfoldNR
19
18
Dry unit
weight 17
(kN/m3)
16
15
14
1
Fig. 2.20
High Hort^Jf
4f>~*
(tedium Honr
rr^
s
x
~r^
LOW QORlptCttW
Hort
^
^N
\,
upper
0 15 20 25
Molding water content (%)
Fig. 2.20 lower
10-'
Hydraulic *
conductivity
(mftj) io<
ID-"
1
O^r
"~C
"
High ^
Mott
^
UA
v\
"^"-^1
.LowXIOrt
\
\
L
0 15 20 25
Molding water content (%)
-24-
-------
Dry unit
weight
(Yd)
Fig. 2.22
Line of optimums
Molding water content (w)
Good bonding of lifts
Fig. 2.23
Poor bonding of lifts
Good bonding of lifts causes
hydraulic defects In adjacent
lifts to bo hydraullcally
unconnected
Poor bonding of lifts CHUMS
hydraulic defects in adjacent
lifts to ba hydraullcally
connected to each other
2.3.1 Field Measurement of
Water Content
Overnight oven drying (ASTM D-2216)
Microwave oven drying (ASTM D-4643)
Direct heating (ASTM D-4959)
0 Calcium carbide gas pressure
(ASTM D-4944)
Nuclear method (ASTM D-3017)
-25-
-------
Source rod*
Gamma ray
source ,
(Cs 137)
Handle
Fig. 2.24
Guide rod
Fast neutron source
(Am 241 + Be)
/ .^Neutron datector
2.3.2 Field Measurement of
Density
Sand cone (ASTM D-1556)
Rubber balloon (ASTM D-2167)
Drive cylinder (ASTM D-2937)
Nuclear method (ASTM D-2922)
Plastic or.
glass jar
Fig. 2.25
Valve
.Metal cone
Base template
i -26-
-------
Air pressure
fitting
Fig. 2.26
Guide rod F'9- 2.27
Drop hammer
Drive head
Sampling tube
Fig. 2.28
-27-
-------
2.4 Borrow Source
Characterization
Table 2.3 suggests:
Water content (1 per 2,000 m3)
Atterberg limits (1 per 5,000 m3)
Percent fines (1 per 5,000 m3)
Percent gravel (1 per 5,000 m3)
Compaction curve (1 per 5,000 m3)
Hydraulic conductivity (1 per 10,000m3)
1 yd3 = 0.76m3
2.4 Borrow Source
Characterization
Hydraulic conductivity
Compact to lowest allowable
w and Yd (most critical point)
Compaction procedure (Fig. 2.29)
Effective stress not excessive
Dry unit
weight
Fig. 2.29
Laboratory
compaction
curve
/KV
First trial
cond trial
Water content
; -28-
-------
2.5 Borrow Source
Inspection
Full-time inspection of borrow
source excavation
Plasticity via visual-manual
procedure (Tables 2.4 and 2.5)
2.6 Preprocessing of Soil
ป Water content adjustment (separate
area if water content changed by
more than 3 percentage points)
ซ Removal of oversized particles
(visual)
ซ Pulverization (visual inspection of
process)
ซ Homogenization (visual inspection of
process)
2.6.5 Bentonite
Table 2.6 suggests:
Liquid limit (1 per truck load or
2 per rail car)
Free swell (1 per truck load or
2 per rail car)
Grain size of dry bentonite (1 per
truck load or 2 per rail car)
Pugmill mixing recommended
-29-
-------
2.6.5.3 Bentonite Content
Table 2.7 suggests:
Methylene blue test (1 per 1,000 m3)
Compaction curve (1 per 5,000 m3)
(needed for hydraulic conductivity
specimen)
Hydraulic conductivity (3/ha/Iift)
2.7 Placement of Loose Lift
Scarification of surface (visual)
Materials tests after loose lift is placed;
Table 2.8 suggests:
Percent fines (1 per 800 m3)
Percent gravel (1 per 800 m3)
Atterberg limits (1 per 800 m3)
Percent bentonite (1 per 800 m3)
(methylene blue)
Compaction curve (1 per 4,000 m3)
M Construction oversight (continuous)
2.7 Placement of Loose Lift
(Continued)
Allowable variations
Assumes that no liner can possibly be in
compliance with specifications everywhere
Recommends setting realistic expectations on
number of failing tests allowed
Table 2.9 suggests:
No more than 5% outliers for Atterberg limits, percent
fines, percent bentonite, and hydraulic conductivity
No more than 10% outliers for percent gravel and
clod size
Outliers not concentrated in one lift or one area
-30-
-------
2.7 Placement of Loose Lift
(Continued)
Correction action
Repair to limits defined by
passing tests
Loose lift thickness (mostly
visual)
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil
Compaction equipment
Type, weight, and length of feet
Ballast for towed rollers
Special problems on slopes
Number of passes affects compactive
energy
Percent coverage (Eq. 2.4) may be
specified
Water content and dry unit weight
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil (continued)
Table 2.10 recommends:
Water content:
Rapid tests (13/ha/IHt)
Overnight drying (1 in 10 rapid tests)
Total unit weight
Rapid tests (13/ha/lift) (nuclear or drive ring)
Other tests (1 in 20 rapid tests) (sand cone,
rubber balloon, .and undisturbed sample)
a Number of passes (3/ha/lift)
a Construction oversight (continuous)
-31-
-------
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil (continued)
Sampling pattern
Grid recommended
Sampling points staggered between lifts
Concerning outliers, Table 2.11 suggests:
Water content and density: No more than 3%
outliers, not concentrated in one area or one
lift, and outliers not outrageous
Number of passes: No more than 5% outliers,
and not concentrated in one area
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil (continued)
Laboratory hydraulic conductivity tests on
undisturbed samples from field:
This aspect of CQA is often overemphasized
75-mm samples too small to Identify larger-scale
defects
Test is slow
Cannot sample soil with gravel
Proper sampling procedure difficult
If tests are performed, suggest:
3/ha/llft or sampla every other lift for liners ^1.2 m thick
Up to 5% outllmt i> ok, but no valuet more than 10 times
too large
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil (continued)
Repair of sampling holes:
Holes from density and other tests
Backfill with clay liner material or
bentonite in lifts
Compact lifts
Independently inspect 20% of repairs
-32-
-------
2.8 Remolding and
Compacting Soil (continued)
9 Final lift thickness (surveys)
Pass/fail decision (make as
quickly as possible)
2.9 Protection of Liner
o To control desiccation:
Smooth roll surface (scarify later)
Water soil
Cover with geomembrane or moist soil
Tests: Measure water content to
resolve questions (if w decreases by
more than 1% to 2%, may have
problems)
Corrective action
2.9 Protection of Liner (continued)
Freeze/thaw:
Never compact frozen soil
Protect from freezing
If soil has frozen:
Scarify/recompact a shallow zone that
has been frozen
Perform careful study if soil has frozen to
depth (Section 2.9.2.3)
Replace soil, if necessary
i-33-
-------
2.10 Test Pads
Purpose: Verify that materials
and methods will produce the
desired result
Dimensions (Fig. 2.31)
Materials
Construction
Protection
2.10 Test Pads
(Continued)
In situ hydraulic conductivity:
Sealed double-ring infiltrometer
Two-stage borehole test (at least 5
tests suggested)
Laboratory tests (very large
samples or to compare with small
samples)
J\
Plan view
Compactor
Fig. 2.31
Drakug* ntMrlal
-34-
-------
In-Situ Hydraulic
Conductivity
Sealed double-ring infiltrometer
Two-stage borehole test (at least 5
tests suggested)
Laboratory tests (very large samples
or to compare with small samples)
-35-
-------
-------
3. Geomembranes
3.1 Types
3.2 Manufacturing
3.3 Handling
3.4 Seaming and Joining
3.5 Destructive Test Methods for Seams
3.6 Nondestructive Test Methods for Seams
3.7 Protection and Backfilling
Various Names:
Geomembranes (GMs)
Flexible membrane liners (FMLs)
Synthetic membrane liners
(SMLs)
Pond liners
3.1 Major Types of GMs
Polyvinyl chloride (PVC)
Chlorosulfonated polyethylene
(CSPE-R)
High density polyethylene (HOPE)
Very low density polyethylene
(VLDPE)
-37-
-------
3.1 Major Types of GMs
(Continued)
Linear low density polyethylene
(LLDPE)
Chlorinated polyethylene (CPE-R)
Polypropylene (PP and PP-R)
Fully crosslinked elastomeric alloy
(FCEA)
Ethylene interpolymer alloy (EIA-R)
Types by Manufacturing Method
Extrusion
HOPE
VLDPE and LLDPE
HDPE/VLDPE/HDPE
PP
Calendered
PVC
CSPE-R and CPE-R
PP and PP-R
FCEA
Table 3.1 Formulations
Carbon
Black or
Geomembrane Resin Plasticizer Filler Pigment Additives
HOPE 95-98 0
VLDPE 9446 0
Other Extrusion 95-98 0
PVC 50-70 25-35
CSPE 40-60 0
Other Calendered 40-97 0-30
0 2-3
0 2-3
0 2-3
0-10 2-5
40-50 5-40
0-50 2-30
0.25-1.0
1-4
1-2
2-5
5-15
0-75
-38-
-------
3.1.1 HOPE
Resin
Virgin polymer is MDPE
Density = 0.934 g/cc to 0.940 g/cc
Melt flow index = 0.1 g/10 min to 1.0
g/10 min
Others tests are FRR and NCTL
Frequency via MQC plan
3.1.1 HOPE
(Continued)
Carbon Black
Powder in 20 nm to 40 nm size range
Usually added as a concentrated
pellet
"Letdown" into mix to 2.0% to 2.5%
by weight
Dispersion must be A-1 , A-2, or B-1
New ASTM dispersion test based on
microtome sections available shortly
3.1.1 HOPE
(Continued)
Additives
Provides lubricant and
processing aid
Prevents long-term
oxidation
Typically 0.5% by weight
-39-
-------
3.1.2VLDPEandLLDPE
Resins
VLDPE p = 0.890 g/cc to 0.912 glee
m LLDPE p = 0.915 g/cc to 0.930 g/cc
Other tests similar to HDPE, except
no stress crack concern
Carbon Black
As with HDPE
Additives
As with HDPE
3.1.4 PVC
PVC Resin
Must be virgin polymer
QC tests: contamination, viscosity,
resin gel, color, and dry time
Frequency via MQC plan
Plasticizer
Monomerlc types - phthalates,
epoxides, and phosphates
Polymeric types - polyesters,
ethylene copolymers, and nitrile
Amount = 25% to 35% by weight
3.1 .4 PVC (Continued)
Filler
Typecalcium carbonate or other
Additives
n For processing, coloring, and
stabilization
-40-
-------
3.1.5CSPE-R
ซ CSPE Resin
Must be virgin polymer
QC tests: viscosity, chlorine content, sulfur
content, and rheometry
Frequency via MQC plan
Carbon Black
Amount = 5% to 36%
Sometimes premixed with resin called a
"master batch"
Needed for processing, filler, and UV
3.1.5 CSPE-R (Continued)
Fillers and Additives
Clay and calcium carbonate
To retard aging
Industrial gradelead oxide
Potable water grademagnesium oxide or
magnesium hydroxide
> Reinforcing Scrim
Usually polyester yarns
100 to 200 fibers per yarn
Made into a woven fabric
Typically 10 x 10 yarns per inch
Comments on Nonvirgin
Materials
Regrind, rework, or trim
Acceptable, if same formulation
No upper limit is suggested
Reclaim or recycled
Also called "postconsumer plastics"
Not acceptable in any amount
See section 3.2.2
I -41-
-------
3.2 Manufacturing of
GM Sheet
3.2.1 Blending, Compounding, and
Mixing
Extrusion: done in the extruder
Calendering: done in batch or
continuous mixers prior to sheet
formation
3.2.3 Extrusion of
Polyethyienes
Single or multiple extruders
Exit die can be either
Flat (die cast)horizontal exit
Circular (blown film)vertical exit
Sizing or nip rollers follow flat die
Wound up on core for shipment
Figure 3.5 Cross-Section Diagram
of a Horizontal Single-Screw
Extruder for Polyethylene
ContiiHKHi. BrMK.rptat.and
Feed Icanpraukm I Metering I
Mctton j notion | section
-42-
-------
3.2.3.1 Flat Die Extrusion
Thickness = 30 mil to 120 mil
8.0-in. extruder =_ 15 ft wide
Two parallel 8.0-in. extruders - 30 ft
Visual inspection required
On-line thickness gauges
Numerous MQC tests
\\
3.2.3.3 Blown Film Extrusion
Thickness = 30 mil to 120 mil
Up to 35 ft circumference (i.e., the
width when opened)
Creases due to nip roller no apparent
concern
Visual inspection required
Numerous MQC tests
Figure 3.7(b) Sketch of Blown Film Manufacturing
of Polyethylene Geomembranes j
Nlproam
-43-
-------
Typical MQC Tests for
Extruded GMs
Thickness
Density
Melt flow index
Percent carbon black
Carbon black distribution
Stress crack resistance
Tensile strength
Tear strength
Puncture resistance
3.2.3.4 Textured Sheet
Method
coextrusion
impingement
lamination
embossing
Process
in-line
secondary
secondary
in-line
Figure 3.8 Various Methods Currently Used to Create
Textured Surfaces on HOPE Geomembranes
External extruder (N2 gat;
Main core extruder
Die
Internal extruder (N2 gat)
(a) Coextrusion with nitrogen gas
-44-
-------
Figure 3.8 Various Methods Currently Used to Create
Textured Surfaces on HOPE Geomembranes (Continued)
FkiblMd (Hdurad) roll
(b) Impingement of hot polyethylene particles
Figure 3.8 Various Methods Currently Used to Create
Textured Surfaces on HOPE Geomembranes (Continued)
HotPE
foam
Spreader
" bar
Smooth
roll
Finished
textured
roil
(c) Lamination with polyethylene foam
MQC/MQA of Textured Sheet
Same tests as base sheet, plus
Index friction by GRI GS-7
Performance friction by D-5321
Thickness measurement is difficult!
Tapered point micrometer
Hand held magnifying scope
Measure nontextured edge
-45-
-------
3.2.5 Specialty Coextruded
Polyethylenes
HDPE/VLDPE/HDPE via 4.0-in.,
8.0-in., and 4.0-in. extruders
Conducting base layer via 20% CB
on lower surface
White surface layer via titanium
dioxide (vs. CB)
Many other possibilities
Figure 3.9 Geomembrane Surface Temperature
Differences Between Black and White Colors
60-
50-
Temp.
(ฐC) 40.
30-
r
ID Black Geomembrane
O White Geomembrane
f~~^
0 60 120 180 240 300
Time (min.)
Calendering of Flexible GMs
Reaction initiated in mixer
Batch process
Continuous type
Mixed material carried by conveyor
Material fed into rolling miil(s)
Fully mixed material fed between
rollers of a "calender"
Various configurations are possible
t46-
-------
Figure 3.10 Sketches of Various
Process Mixers
Sliding
discharge
door
Feed hopper
Rotors
Cooling/
heating
channels
(a) Batch process mixer
Figure 3.10 Sketches of Various
PrOCeSS Mixers (Continued)
Feed
Diffbharge
(b) Continuous type mixer
Figure 3.11 Various Types of
Four-Roll Calenders
Feed-
Rolling bink
(a) Vertical
Feed
Rolling b>nk
(b) Inverted L
-47-
-------
Figure 3.11 Various Types of
Four-Roll Calenders
(Continued)
Feed
Rolling bank
(c) Inclined Z
r\
3.2.6 PVC Calendering '
i
Thickness = 20 mil to 60 mil '
ซ Roll width = 5 ft to 7 ft j
Visual inspection of sheet !
One or both surfaces can be
embossed !
Other tests per MQC plan
3.2.7 CSPE-R Calendering
Unreinforcedsame as PVC
Reinforcedfabric scrim between two plys of
geomembrane
Adhesion of plys occurs between yarns (i.e.,
through fabric voids)
Salvageedges have no exposed fabric
Thickness measured over scrim
Ply adhesion and other tests per MQC plan
'-48-
-------
Fabrication of Flexible
GM Panels
Rolls of calendered GM are stored until
a specific order is placed
Fabricated into accordian folded
panels in two directions
Factory seaming by dielectric,
chemical, or thermal methods
Placed on a wooded pallet and covered
with cardboard for site delivery
3.3.3 Acceptance/Conformance
Tests at Site
GM Type
HOPE and
VLDPE
PVC
CSPE-R
Test
thickness
tensile
puncture
tear
thickness
tensile
tear
thickness
tensile
ply adhesion
Method
D-5199
D-638
101C
D-1004
D-5199
D-882
D-1004
D-5199
D-751
D-413
GM Acceptance and
Conformance
Primary duty of CQC personnel
Typically one sample per 100,000 ft2, or
one per lot (lot to be defined)
Should be verified by CQA
Additional (but less frequent) tests can be
done by CQA
CQA testing is sometimes performance
oriented to verify design assumptions
i-49-
-------
3.3.4 Placement
Soil subgrade
Stable, smooth, nonstanding water,
and nonrutting by placement
equipment
Temperature limits
High temperature (blocking) maximum
of50ฐC(122ฐF)
Low temperature (cracking) minimum
ofOฐC(32ฐF)
3.3.4 Placement (continued)
9 Expansion/contraction concerns
D Adequate slack required
D Backfilling discussed later
Positioning or "spotting"
a Minimize dragging
D Temporarily tack weld PE
Use sand bags
B Concentrate on windward side
3.3.4.5 Wind Considerations
"Blow-outs" are a common problem
Torn GM usually trimmed and
reseamed
Long sections are cap stripped
Heavily creased HDPE is tested and
approved or rejected
Specification and/or QA plan must be
very specific on this issue
-50-
-------
3.4 Seaming and Joining
of GMs
Table 3.2 Methods of Joining Geomembranes
Thermal Processes Chemical Processes
Extrusion:
Fillet
Flat
Chemical: j
Chemical fusion \
Bodied chemical fusion!
Fusion:
Hot wedge
Hot air
Adhesive:
Chemical adhesive
Contact adhesive
Figure 3.19 Various Methods Available !
to Fabricate Geomembrane Seams ;
Fillet-type Flat-type
(a) Extrusion seams
Dual hot wedge Single hot air
(Single track it also ponlble) (Dual track I* alto possible)
(b) Fusion seams
J
Figure 3.19 Various Methods Available
to Fabricate Geomembrane Seams
(Continued)
Chemical Bodied chemical
(c) Chemical seams
Chemical adhesive Contact adhesive
(d) Adhesive seams
: -51-
-------
Table 3.3 Field Seaming Methods
for Various Geomembranes
Typo of Geomembrane
Type of Seaming Other Other
Method HPOE VLDPE Polyethylene PVC CSPE-fl Flexible
Extnuion A A A nla n/a n/a
(fillet and flat)
Thermal fusion A A A A A A
(hot wedge and
hot air)
Chemical n/a n/a n/a A A A
(chemical and
bodied chemical)
Adhesive n/a n/a n/a A A A
(chemical and
contact)
3.4.3 Test Strips/Trial Seams
Also called "qualifying seams"
Should preceed production seaming
Challenges crew and equipment
Typically 5 ft to 10 ft long seam
Made every 4 hours, or when climate
or subgrade changes
3.4.3 Test Strips/Trial Seams
(Continued)
Seam is tested in shear and peel
using a field tensiometer
If failure, try again (see Figure 3.22)
If second failure, retrain
crew/equipment
Can best be done for thermal
seaming processes which can be
tested immediately
I -52-
-------
Figure 3.22 Test Strip Process Flow Chart
* Itot*: atarrUng crw* filling to
praptn *ccซptiblซ tt*t ttrip*
may r*qulrป ntrttnlng In
eeontariM with COC/CQA
-53-
-------
3.5.2 Sampling Strategies
Fixed increment sampling (typically one
sample per 500 ft)
Random sampling (random selection within
a fixed increment)
"Method of attributes" or "control charts"
Rewards good field seaming
Penalizes poor field seaming
e Spec or CQA plan can purposely avoid
certain areas (e.g., sumps and penetrations)
3.5 Destructive Tests
Select location on production seam
Length of sample varies from 14 in. to 42 in.
14 in.CQA only
28 in.CQC and CQA
42 in.CQC, CQA, and O/O
Cut two 1.0-in. test specimens from ends
Field test in peel and if acceptable
Send remaining sample to CQA lab
CQA Testing Procedure
Cut five 1.0-in. wide shear specimens
Cut five 1.0-in. wide peel specimens
Test according to Table 3.4
If failure, bound limits of bad seam by
taking destructive samples each side
For disputes, use CQC sample
Specification or CQA plan must be
specific
-54-
-------
3.5.3 Shear Testing of GM
Seams
Type of shear test depends on GM
(see Table 3.4)
Requires film tear bond, i.e., in sheet
Requires a minimum force
Based on NSF recommendations
Based on manufacturers certification
Based on multiple sheet tests
Typically 80% to 95% of above
Acceptance/Rejection of
Destructive Seam Shear Tests
Must be film tear bond (FTB) (i.e., in
sheet, not delamination)
Must exceed specified force (value is
project specific)
Acceptance is often 4 out of 5 (with
failure >80% of specified)
Other possibilities exist
3.5.4 Peel Testing of
GM Seams
Type of peel test depends on GM (see
Table 3.4)
Requires film tear bond, i.e., in sheet
Requires a minimum force
Based on NSF recommendations
Based on manufacturers certification
Based on multiple sheet tests
Criterion varies with GM type
-55-
-------
Acceptance/Rejection of
Destructive Seam Peel Tests
ซ Must be film tear bond (FTB) (except scrim
reinforced)
Must exceed specified force (value is
lower than shear test)
Acceptance is often 4 out of 5 (with failure
>80% of specified)
Other possibilities exist
More troublesome than shear tests
(especially for extrusion fillet seams)
3.6 Nondestructive Tests
e Air lance
o Mechanical point (pick) stress
9 Dual seam (air pressure)
o Vacuum chamber
o Electric (spark and wire)
ป Electric (field)
ซ Ultrasonic pulse echo
ซ Ultrasonic impedence
ซ Ultrasonic shadow
Electrically Conducting GMs
Coextruded underside layer
approximately 2 mil thick containing
20% carbon black
0 Dense mixture is electrically
conductive
Spark tested with 15 kV to 35 kV
wand
Gundlineฎ HOC patent
-56-
-------
3.6.4 Comments on NOT of
GM Seams
Cover fully in spec or CQA plan
Timing is important
Generally 100% of field seams
(stipulate for factory seams)
Sumps and pipe penetrations require
special attention
Critical CQA itemmust be observed
and documented
3.7 Protection and Backfilling
Puncture from below (concern is from
stones in subgrade)
Puncture from above (concern is from
coarse drainage gravel)
See Table 3.7
GM Type Critical Cone Height
HOPE 12mm .50 in.
CSPE-R 15mm .60 in.
PVC 70 mm 2.75 in.
VLDPE 89 mm 3.50 in.
Excessive Slack vs. Waves
and Wrinkles
Temperature difference needs determination
Coefficient of expansion/contraction is
documented (see Table 3.8)
Calculate required amount of slack
Limit wave height < width of wave
Backfill when GM is at its lowest temperature
Backfill using fingers of soil cover
Stipulate thickness of first lift
-57-
-------
Figure 3.26
Advancing cover
toll over
geomembrane
Note: Arrows Indicate advancement of
cover toll over geomembrane
3.7.3 General Specification
Items
Temperature should be as low as possible
Daybreak to 10 a.m. or 11 a.m. is
recommended
If at night, consider safety and noise
No equipment allowed directly on GM
No equipment is allowed on any GS!!!
Exceptions are low tire pressure ATVs
CQA should observe and document
backfilling
i -58-
-------
4. Geosynthetic Clay Liners
(GCLs)
4.1 Types and Composition
4.2 Manufacturing
4.3 Handling
4.4 Installation
4.5 Backfilling or Covering
V.
r
Various Names:
Clay blankets
Clay mats
Bentonite blankets
Bentonite mats
Prefabricated bentonite
clay blankets
Background of GCLs
First used in 1986 as backup to GM in
primary liner on private landfills
Purpose was to minimize leakage
rates
Used in Europe as single liner for
pollution and seepage control barrier
since mid 1980s
-59-
-------
4.1 Typical Properties
Thickness = 0.16 in. to 0.32 in.
Bentonite mass ~ 1.0 Ib/ft2
Sodium bentonite powder or
granules
Placed between GTs or on a GM
Bonding by adhesives, needle
punching, or stitch bonding
Figure 4.1 Cross Section of Currently Available
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)
Upper geotextile
- 5 mm
Lower geotextile
(a) Adhesive bound clay to upper and lower geotextiles
Figure 4.1 Cross Section of Currently Available
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) (Continued)
Upper geotextile
Clay^AahesiveojClayl I I I
^Lower geotextile
(b) Stitch bonded clay between upper and lower geotextiles
i -60-
-------
Figure 4.1 Cross Section of Currently Available
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) (Continued)
Upper geotextile
Needle punched
fibers throughout
-4-6 mm
T
Lower geotextile
(c) Needle punched clay through upper and lower geotextiles
Figure 4.1 Cross Section of Currently Available
Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) (Continued)
JL
- 4.5 mm
Clay + Adhesive
k Lower or upper
geo membrane
(d) Adhesive bound clay to a geomembrane
4.2.1 Bentonite Properties
Naturally occurring mined mineral
70% to 90% sodium montmorillonite
X-ray diffraction or methylene blue absorption
for identification
Other possible identification tests
Particle size
Moisture content
Bulk density
Free swall
Bentonite is a very hydrophilic material!
: -61-
-------
MQC/MQA Tests on
Bentonite
Free swell via USP-NF 18
Plate water absorption via E-946
Moisture content via D-2216
Particle size via D-422
Fluid loss via API 13B
pH via D-4972
Liquid/plastic limits via D-4318
4.2.2 Manufacturing
Certification required of GTs or GM
MARV values for GT properties
Metal detector for broken needles
Verify "average" mass per unit area
Printed overlap line on both sides
Product is wrapped for waterproofing
Proper identification via ASTM D-4873
Figure 4.2 Schematic Diagrams of the Manufacture of
Different Types of Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)
Bwrtonit* Upper
geotaxtito
Bentonito H roll (opt)
Calender
ซtปtion
oven
Lower geotextile
or goomembrane
(a) Adhesive mixed with clay
-efe-
-------
Figure 4.2 Schematic Diagrams of the Manufacture of
Different Types of Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs)
(Continued)
Bentonite
Bentonito hopper "B"
hopper "A" (opt) Upper Needling or stitch
Lower __^ ^^w geotextlle bonding station
geotextile 1^ ^^ T^ nnTTTlTn To
windup
(b) Needle punched or stitch bonded through clay
MQC/MQA Tests on
Finished GCL
Thickness via D-1777, but not relevant
for thick GTs on GCLs
Average mass per unit area via D-5261
Clay content via D-5261 (difficult)
Hydraulic conductivity via GCL2
(index or performance)
Shear strength via D5321 (top, mid-
plane, and bottom)
4.2.3 Covering and
Transportation
Waterproof plastic covering
Tight-fit or bagged around GCL
Core must be available for handling
Identification via D-4873 (in core and
on packaging)
-63-
-------
4.3.1 Storage
Store indoors at factory until ready for
shipment to job site
Shipment via truck, rail, or ship
Site storage should be CQA approved
No ripped wrappers
No product damage
No point stresses
No product thinning
No excessive moisture uptake
J/
i
1\
4.3.4 Acceptance and
Conformance Testing
Mass per unit area via D-5261*
Free swell via GCL-1 *
Hydraulic conductivity via GCL-2**
Direct shear via D-5321 **
Peel test of needled GCLs via D-413***
*Frequency per D-4354
"One per 100,000 ft2
***One per 20,000 ft2
j/
4.4.1 Placement
Maximum subgrade rut depth = 1.0 in.
Frozen ruts should be lower
Minimum overlap = 6 in. to 12 in.
Observe for loss of bentonite (watch out for leak
detection layer)
Visually inspect the deployed GCL
Usually progress downgradient
Keep backfill or covering GM as close as
possible to edge of GCL to avoid premature
hydration
-64-
-------
Various GCL Installation Methods
(after Trauger and Tewes; April 1994)
METHOD
Manual UnroN
Gravity Rofl
neiaaae
Stationary RoH
PuM
Moving Roll Putt
TECHNIQUE
GCL to placed on
ground and to
pu*hed maouiHy.
GCL to towered
down* lope by
lowly releasing
from a name**.
RoU t> *u*penoad at
site perimeter md
on* ซnd 1* manually
pulled out into area
to be lined.
On* end of GCL to
placed at ste
perimeter. GCL roll
1* suspended from
equipment, which
move* backward
along area to b* lined.
ADVANTAGES
Minimum equipment
required. Good for
confined *pace*.
Applicable fof
slope* that an too
sleep for trad Wonai
equipment.
Equipment can b*
kept out of lined
area. No equipment
damage to subgrade
orGSs.
High product ton
rate* po*sible.
DISADVANTAGES
Low production
rate*. Labor-
Irrterafve, heavy
rotl*.
Low production
rate*. Difficult to
guide GCL ae It
unroll*.
Modaat production
rate*. Coareer
subgrade* could
damage und*r*lde
of GCL
Equipment cannot
run on underlying
GS material* or
cause excessive
rutting of tubgrad*.
4.4.2 Joining
No positive fixity of overlaps
Align overlap edge with overlap line
Increase overlap for sites with high
temperature and/or low humidity
Roll ends may require additional
overlap
Add bentonite (powder or paste) in
overlap of GCLs with needle punched
GTs
4.4.3 Repairs
Holes, tears, and rips can be patched
Use patch 12 in. beyond damaged
area
May require additional bentonite in
overlap region
Observe for loss of bentonite both in
product and for contamination of
other GSs, leak detection layer, etc.
i -65-
-------
4.5 Backfilling or Covering
GCL should be covered before rain or snow
occurs
A temporary cover (e.g., a thin GM) can be
used
CQA must be continuous
Backfill up side slopesconcern over tensile
stresses
Soil backfill should be carefully controlled
(0.5 in. maximum particle size in backfill)
Minimum lift thickness must be stipulated in
spec or CQA plan
-66-
-------
5. Soil Drainage Systems
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Materials
5.3 Control of Materials
5.4 Location of Borrow Sources
5.5 Processing Material
5.6 Placement
5.7 Compaction
5.8 Protection
5.1 Introduction
Soil drainage systems for:
Water drainage in final cover
m Gas collection in final cover
m Primary leachate collection layer
Secondary leachate collection
layer
Drainage trenches
5.2 Materials
Hazen's formula:
k(cm/s) = D102 (mm)
Hydraulic conductivity:
<0.01 to 1 cm/s
[Eq.5.1]
-67-
-------
Percent finer
by dry weight ซ>
Fig. 5.1
Smaller size ^ฐ Larger size
Mean grain diameter (log scale)
5.2 Materials
(Continued)
9 For filters:
Filter fine enough to prevent migration
of fine particles
Dis,fliter<{4to5) DKtton
m Filter adequately permeable
DIS, filter > 4 D1SiSO||
B Issue may include drain/filter and
filter/soil
Fig. 5.2
Filter Layer To Prevent Migration
of Soil Particles Into Drainage Layer
!-68-
-------
5.3 Control of Materials
To verify hydraulic conductivity:
Obtain representative sample
Compact in laboratory to desired dry
density
Permeate per ASTM D-2434
Allow a margin of safety; construction
process will generate fines
ซ Rule of thumb: 1/2% fines from each
handling
i\
5.3 Control of Materials
Grain-size distribution (ASTM D-422):
Rely on D10 or percent fines rather
than hydraulic conductivity for field
control
5.3 Control of Materials
Table 5.2 suggests:
Borrow source tests: grain size,
hydraulic conductivity, and carbonate
content* (1 per 2,000 m3)
m Tests after placement:
Grain size (1 per hectare)
. Hydraulic conductivity (1 per 3 ha)
Carbonate content" (1 per 2,000 m3)
Outliers <5% and not too extreme
Only for carbonate-containing material
i -69-
-------
V
/"
5.5 Processing Material
Watch out for:
Oversized material
Angular material
Excessive fines
Excessive carbonate content
5.6 Placement
Dump and spread to minimize
generation of fines
Place from bottom of slope upward
Don't risk damage to underlying
geosynthetic material
5.7 Compaction
Reasons to compact: compaction reduces
settlement, reduces liquefaction potential,
and increases strength
Problems with compaction: compaction
reduces porosity and increases fines, both
of which decrease hydraulic conductivity;
compaction also applies stress to
underlying geosynthetics
Recommendation: do not compact
drainage material unless there is a good
reason to do so
-70-
-------
5.8 Protection
Prevent damage from waste ("select"
waste in first lift of waste) and verify
Use protection layer (soil or waste)
Minimal dust
Avoid exposure to soil erosion from
slopes
1-71-
-------
-------
6. Geosynthetic Drainage
Systems
* 6.1 Overview
6.2 Geotextiles (for Filtration)
6.3 Geonets (for Drainage) and
Geotextile/Geonet
Composites
6.4 Other Geocomposites
Figure 6.1 Cross Section of a Landfill Illustrating the Use of Different
Geosynthetics Involved in Waste Containment Drainage Systems
LEGEND
or ซaeotซxtui
QN
GM ป Gtomambram
GCL= Gwnynthetlc clay liner
QC = Gซocompoซltซ
COL. Compacud clay Hrur
6.2 Geotextiles
Fabrics
Filter fabrics
Construction fabrics
Construction cloth
-;73-
-------
^
6.2.1 Manufacturing
Polymers
(PP, PET, and others)
Yarns
(various types)
Fabrics
(woven, nonwoven, and
knit)
Geotextile Polymers
Table 6.1 - Formulations Used in the
Manufacture of Geotextiles
Carbon Other
Generic Name Resin Black Additives*
Polypropylene 95-98 O304.
Polyester 97-98 0-1 0-2
Others** 95-98 1-3 1-2
Processing aids and antioxidants
"PA, PE, and combinations
MQC/MQA Tests on
Polymers
PP
Melt flow index
Density
PET
Viscosity
Color
Moisture content
!-74-
-------
Figure 6.3 Types of Polymeric Fibers or Yarns Used in
the Construction of Different Types of Geotextiles
IV1-1"TgTT <^J II ป<' /
j it ii ป ii rC
^f^-d1 a * -=- ^
6.2.1.3 Fabric Types
V
/^
Woven
Monofilament
Multlfilament
Slit (split) film
Nonwoven
Needlepunched
Heat bonded
Resin dipped
6.2.1.4 MQC/MQA Tests
Weight via D-5261
Grab tensile via D-4632
Trapezoidal tear via D-4355
Burst strength via D-3786
Puncture strength via D-4833
Thickness via D-5199
Apparent opening size via D-4751
Permittivity via D-4491
y
"K
! -75-
-------
Other GT Considerations
Values should be MARV
Ultraviolet degradation is a concern
(spec or QA plan should be very
specific on maximum exposure time)
Needle punched GTs need on-line
metal detector for broken needles
Be specific on possible use of
reclaimed/recycled fibers
6.2.2 Handling of GTs
Identification, storage, and handling via
D-4873
Keep in protective wrapper to prevent UV
degradation
ซ Conformance and CQA sampling via D-4354
Rewrap roll with wrapper after sampling
Testing acceptance/rejection via D;4759
Same index tests as with MQC/MQA
GTs are nicely set up via ASTM methods
6.2.2.6 Placement
Underlying layer must be CQA
approved
Anchor at top on side slopes
Spot very carefully on textured GMs
Wind uplift rarely causes damage
Cover as per specs and CQA plan
-76-
-------
6.2.3 Seaming
Protection GTs are usually
overlapped
Filter GTs are usually sewn
Sewing is for uniform coverage, not
necessarily for strength
Use thread of opposite color to fabric
Seam types shown in Figure 6.6
6.2.4 Backfilling or Covering
Watch for GT shifting
The backfilling material must be very
carefuily placed. Options are:
Protective soil
Rubber tire shards
Select waste
Cover GT within 14 days for PP and
28 days for PET
6.3 GNs and GT/GN Composites
Geonets are drainage materials
Used as leachate collection, leak
detection, and surface water drainage
Planar flow of a GN jr 12 in. of sand
GNs consist of overlapped sets of ribs
Integrally manufactured via extrusion
Thickness = 0.150 in. to 0.300 in.
Width = 5 ft to 15 ft
-77-
-------
6.3.1 Manufacture
Resin p = 0.934 g/cc to 0.940 glee
Carbon black = 2.0% to 2.5%
Additive package n 0.5%
Exact same formulation as HOPE
Extrusion within counterrotating die
See Figure 6.9
Figure 6.9 Counterrotating Die Technique for
Manufacturing Drainage Geonets
PotymtrfMd
Spreading mandrel
and
quench tank
Comments on GNs
No recycled or reclaimed polymer
Rework (or trim) is acceptable (if proper
formulation)
Same MQC tests as HDPE GMs
Some GNs have foamed ribs
Acceptable if approved in design
Handling, transportation, and storage is
straightforward
New types of GNs are being developed
-------
6.3.2.5 Conformance and
CQA Testing
ซ Density per D-1505 or D-792
ซ Mass per unit are per D-5261
Thickness per D-5199
Compression per D-1621
TransmissivityperD-4716
r:
6.3.2.6 Placement of GNs
Similar to GTs
Usually labor intensive
No equipment allowed on
previously placed geosynthetics
Specification must be very
strong on this issue
6.3.3 Joining of GNs
Plastic fasteners or polymer braid
Roll edges overlapped 3 in. to
4 in.
Ties at 5 ft centers
Roll ends overlapped 6 in. to 8 in.
Ties at 6 in. centers
-79-
-------
6.3.4 GN/GT Composites
Any type of GT can be used
Plan and spec must clearly identify
GT can be placed on both sides
Usually bonded at manufacturing plant
Bonding by thermal fusion (surface of GN
is melted)
Also bonded by adhesives (watch water
solubility and organics)
Ply adhesion test via D-413
6.4 Other Geocomposites
Sheet, wick, and edge drains
GTs on one side or surrounding
Cores consist of various polymers
(PS, PA, PP, PVC, PE, and PE/PS/PE)
Plans and specs must clearly identify
ASTM active on chemical resistance
Figure 6.13 Vacuum Forming System for
Fabrication of a Drainage Geocomposite
Infrared heaters
~ Extruded
Vacuum
-80-
-------
6.4.1 MQC/MQA Tests for
Geocomposite Cores
Polymer type via chemical ID tests
Thickness via D-5199
Dimensions via direct measurement
Compressive strength via D-1621
Transmissivity via D-4716
Ply adhesion (if applicable) via D-413
GTs (as described earlier)
6.4.3 Joining/Covering
Often male/female interlock
9 Otherwise overlapped
Complete GT covering is essential
Use generous GT overlaps
-81-
-------
-------
7. Vertical Cutoff Walts
7.1 Introduction
7.2 Types of Cutoff Walls
7.3 Construction of Slurry Trench
Cutoff Walls
* 7.4 Other Types of Cutoff Walls
7.5 Specific CQA Requirements
7.6 Post-construction Test for
Continuity
7.1 Introduction
Cutoff walls used to:
Dewater excavation (Fig. 7.1)
Limit ground-water flow (Fig. 7.2)
Restrict migration of ground water into
waste (Fig. 7.3)
Limit release of contaminants (Fig. 7.4)
CQA for cutoff wall part of CQA for
waste containment facility
Fig. 7.1
Pumps lower
ground-water level Slurry wall restricts
beneath excavated water flow into the cell
cell
-83-
-------
Fig. 7.2
Fig. 7.3
Fig. 7.4
: -84-
-------
7.2 Types of Cutoff Walls
i Interlocking steel sheet piles
> Interlocking geomembrane panels
> Walls constructed with slurry
techniques
Backfilled (e.g., soii-bentonite)
Not backfilled (e.g., cement-
bentonite)
i
Fig. 7.5
Interlock
r\
Fig. 7.6
! -85-
-------
Weight of slurry
creates pressure
acting on filter
cake
Fig. 7.7
Fig. 7.8
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walls
Mobilization (hold preconstruction meeting)
Site preparation (need level surface &
working space)
Slurry preparation
4% to 8% bentonite (by weight)
Density (mud balance, ASTM D-4380)
Viscosity (marsh funnel)
Sand content (volume per ASTM D-4381)
Filtrate loss (API RP 13A and 13B)
,-86-
-------
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walls (continued)
Excavation of slurry trench
Backhoe for 20 m to 25 m
(Fig. 7.10)
Clam shell (Fig. 7.11)
Width of trench is 0.6 m to 1.2 m
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walls
Soil-bentonite (SB) backfill:
Soil is mixed with bentonite slurry
May or may not add additional dry,
powdered bentonite
Critical factors are:
Presence of coarse material (particles
settle to bottom)
Presence of fine material (at least 10% to
30% fine material is desirable)
Proper placement
-K
i
"K
Collapse of
trench during
construction
Sand
deposited
after pause in
backfilling
Sand on bottom
of slurry trench
Fig. 7.14
!-87-
-------
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walls (continued)
Cement-bentonite (CB) backfill:
D Typical mix (weight basis):
75% to 80% water
15% to 20% cement
5% bentonite
Construction is by panels
Fig. 7.15 (A) !
(A) Excavate panels
Excavated panels
Panel being
excavated
Fig. 7.15(B)
(B) Excavate between panels
Excavation between
previously excavated
panels
-------
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walls (continued)
Geomembrane in slurry trench
cutoff wall:
May insert geomembrane in CB
trench for composite barrier
Relatively new, but very
promising technology
7.3 Construction of Slurry
Trench Cutoff Walis (continued)
Other backfills:
Plastic concrete (structural
concrete and bentonite)
Soil-cement-bentonite (adds
strength to SB wall)
Cap
7.5 Specific CQA
Requirements
9 No standard tests or frequencies
ซ Log excavated soil; verify
penetration into aquitard, if
applicable; check for caving of trench
Test slurry (unit weight and viscosity
are critical)
Test backfill (unit weight, slump,
gradation, hydraulic conductivity)
-89-
-------
7.6 Post-construction Test
for Continuity
No procedures presently
available
-90-
-------
8. Ancillary Materials,
Appurtenances, etc.
8.1 Plastic Pipe
8.2 Sumps, Manholes, and Risers
8.3 Liner System Penetrations
8.4 Anchor Trenches
8.5 Access Ramps
8.6 Geosynthetic Reinforcement Materials
8.7 Geosynthetic Erosion Control Materials
8.8 Floating Covers for Surface Impoundments
8.1 Plastic Pipe (a.k.a.
"Geopipe")
PVC
HOPE (smooth)
HOPE (corrugated)
8.1.1 PVC Pipe
PVC resin via D-1755
Fillers, carbon black, pigment, and
additives
No plasticizer is added
Fully covered via ASTM standards
-91-
-------
8.1.2 HOPE Smooth
Wall Pipe
Resin p = 0.950 g/cc to 0.960 g/cc
Carbon black and additives
Same as HOPE geomembrane, but
higher density (i.e., it's true HOPE!)
Fully covered via ASTM standards
8.1.3 HOPE Corrugated
Wall Pipe
Same formulation as smooth wall
Inside is usually smooth
Lack of ASTM standards
There are a few AASHTO
standards
r
8.1.4 Handling of Plastic Pipe
Expansion/contraction must be
considered via AT between
installation and backfilling
Many ASTM standards of practice
ซ ASTM D-2321 is particularly
important
o Backfilling is critical especially below
the pipe haunches
i-92-
-------
Case History of Pipe Failure
Pipe inspection showed two
blockages
Pipe was buried under 80 ft of waste
Required steel sheet pile cofferdams
Remediation cost was $1.5 M
8.2 Sumps, Manholes, \
and Risers i
Critical part of the site's liquids management ;
program j
Sump Is at lowest elevation of cell or landfill !
facility ;
Hydraulic heads are highest, hence leaks are j
most critical !
Work is very difficult and not easily j
automated ;
Design plans and specs must be very ;
detailed i
-93-
-------
Figure 8.7 Various Possible Schemes
for Leachate Removal
lachate
removal
Footing
In-sltu fabrication ' ' Factory fabrication
(a) Types of primary leachate collection sumps and manholes with
vertical aland pi pป going through lhซ waale and cover
Figure 8.7 Various Possible Schemes
for Leachate Removal (continued)
(b) Type* of primary (left) and secondary (right) leachate collection sumps
and pipe risers going up the side slopes
8.3 Liner System
Penetrations
GM pipe boots are prefabricated to fit
the O.D. of each penetration
CCLs require dry bentonite over
entire thickness of layer
GCLs should have dry bentonite or
pieces of excess GCL carefully fitted
around penetration
-94-
-------
Figure 8.8 Pipe Penetrations Through
Various Types of Barrier Materials
Pipe
(a) Geomembrane penetration
:~ ihioning layer
inless steel clamp
ueomembrane
Field seam
Figure 8.8 Pipe Penetrations Through
Various Types of Barrier Materials (Continued)
Dry bentonite
Pipe
(b) Compacted clay liner (CCL) penetration
Figure 8.8 Pipe Penetrations Through ,
Various Types of Barrier Materials (Continued)
GCL
Dry bentonite
Pipe
MAM
rv
*Dry bentonite
(c) Geosynthetic clay liner (GCL) penetration
-95-
-------
8.4 Anchor Trenches
Seaming of GM should be complete
before insertion into anchor trench
Multiple anchor trenches for different
layers are possible (i.e., follow plans)
Specs or CQA plan should be
specific about backfilling (i.e., tight
or loose)
Different configurations in Figure 8.9
Figure 8.9 Various Types of Geomembrane
Anchor Trenches (Dimensions Are Typical and
Examples Only)
300 -600 mm
(a) Typical anchor trench
Figure 8.9 Various Types of Geomembrane
Anchor Trenches (Dimensions Are Typical and
Examples Only) (Continued)
(b) Horizontal runout anchor
-96-
-------
Figure 8.9 Various Types of Geomembrane
Anchor Trenches (Dimensions Are Typical and
Examples Only) (Continued)
300 - 400 mm
(c) Shallow "V" anchor trench
Figure 8.9 Various Types of Geomembrane
Anchor Trenches (Dimensions Are Typical and
Examples Only) (Continued)
Bolted anchor iy*tซm
Top of (lope
Polymer batten strip
H
(d) Concrete anchor block
8.5 Access Ramps
\\
Design must accommodate stresses
on liner and drainage system
Plans must be detailed and consider
dynamic loads of construction
equipment and large haulage trucks
Ramp failures are not uncommon
-97-
-------
Figure 8.10 Typical Access Ramp
Geometry and Cross Section
(a) Geometry of a
typical ramp
Figure 8.10 Typical Access Ramp
Geometry and Cross Section (continued)
(b) Cross section of ramp roadway
Geomembrane
Geomembrane
8.6 GS Reinforcement
Materials
Cover soil veneer stability
Leachate collection soil
veneer stability
Vertical expansions
Lateral expansions
-98-
-------
Figure 8.11 Geogrid or
Geotextile Reinforcement
Reinforcement
(geogrid or
geotextlle)
Cover soil
Geomembrane
(a) Cover soil veneer stability
Figure 8.11 Geogrid or Geotextile
Reinforcement (continued)
Leachate collection soil
Reinforcement ',
(geogrid or
geotextlle)
(b) Leachate collection soil veneer stability
Figure 8.11 Geogrid or Geotextile
Reinforcement (continued)
Proposed landfill
Geomembrane
Existing landfill
I Reinforcement
(geogrid or
geotaxtile)
(c) Liner system reinforcement for "piggy backing"
-99-
-------
8.6.1 Reinforcement
Geotextites
MQC/MQA tests as with other GTs
Additional tests are:
B Wide width tensile via D-4595
Seam tensile via D-4884
Polymer identification via TGA
Side slope backfilling is very
important (anchor trench, seams,
light construction equipment, work
UD the slooe)
8.6.2 Geogrids
Stiff, unitized types are HOPE
Flexible, textile types are coated PET
MQC/MQA tests are similar to HOPE GMs
and PET GTs, respectively
Conformance tests via HOPE GMs and PET
GTs plus wide width tensile via D-4595 and
seam tensile via D-4884
Side slope backfilling is very important
(anchor trench, seams, light construction
equipment, work up the slope)
J\
M
8.7 GS Erosion Control
Materials
(a) Temporary Erosion Control and Revegetation
Mats (TERMS)
Mulches (hand- or machine-applied straw or
hay)
Mulches (hydraulically applied wood fibers or
recycled paper)
Jute meshes
Fiber-filled containment meshes
ซ Woven geotextile erosion control meshes
Fiber roving systems (continuous fiber
systems)
J\
-100-
-------
V
r
8.7 GS Erosion Control
Materials (continued)
(b) Permanent Erosion Control and
Revegetation Mats (PERMs)
Geosynthetic systems
Turf reinforcement and revegetation
mats (TRMs)
Erosion control and revegetation mats
(ECRMs)
Geomatting systems
Geoceliular containment systems
8.7 GS Erosion Control
Materials (continued)
Hard armor systems
Cobbles, with or without geotextiles
Rip-rap, with or without geotextiles
Articulated concrete blocks, with or
without geotextiles
B Grout injected between geotextiles
Partially or fully paved systems
Comments on Erosion
Control Materials
Must follow plans/specs and QA plan
Utilize the manufacturer's experience
Some materials damage easily
"Intimate contact" Is essential
Use pins, U-shaped wires, and anchors
Overlap typically 3 in. at edges and 18 in. at ends
May be filled with topsoll
Use of on-slte manufacturer's representative Is
common practice
-101-
-------
Alternate Daily Cover
Materials*
Polymer foams
Slurry sprays
Sludges and indigenous materials
Reusable geosynthetics (geotextiles
and geomembranes)
*Sae Pohland and Graven
EPA/600/R-93/172
NTIS PB93-227197
Alternate Daily Cover
Materials (continued)
Polymer foams
Rusmar*
Terrafoam*
Saniformฎ
Topcoat*
Slurry sprays
Con coverฎ (paper)
Posishellฎ (paper)
Land-coverฎ (clay/polymer)
Alternate Daily Cover
Materials (continued)
Sludges and indigenous materials
Naturiteฎ/Naturefillฎ
Ash-based
N-ViroSoilฎ
Auto fluff
Chemfixฎ
Foundry sand
Green waste/compost
Shredded tires
i-102-
-------
Alternate Daily Cover
Materials (continued)
Reusable geosynthetics
Air Space Saverฎ
FabriSoilฎ
Aqua-Shed0
Griffolynฎ
Covertechฎ
Polyfeltฎ
Cormierฎ
Sanicoverฎ
Typarฎ
8.8 Floating Covers for
Surface Impoundments
Follows GM discussion of Chapter 3
Anchorage details are critical
Deployment must follow detailed plan
Many patented designswarrants are
important and very worthwhile
ASTM D35.02 Activities
Ovarlaps thซ oxlatlng EPA 90ซ0 tซt
-------
-------
I. Introduction
Hydrologic
Evaluation of
Landfill
Performance
-105-
-------
Background
HELP was developed at the
USAE Waterways Experiment
Station for the U.S. EPA Office
of Solid Waste to provide
technical support for the RCRA
and Superfund programs.
History
1980 Development of HSSWDS for
U.S. EPA Municipal Solid
Waste Program
1983 Development of HELP Version
1 for UiS. EPA RCRA Program
1984 Version 1 released as a
mainframe computer program
1986 Release of Version 1 as a
PC program
-------
j
History
(Continued)
1984 to 1986 Verification of lateral drainage
equation
1985 to 1987 Verification of HELP using
existing field data
1986 to 1988 Development of HELP Version 2
incorporating public comments,
verification findings, and HSWA
and CERCLA requirements
1990 to 1993 Development of HELP Version 3
incorporating broader range of
applications
Purpose
The purpose of the HELP model is to
provide permit evaluators and landfill
designers with a tool to rapidly evaluate
and compare the performance of alternative
landfill designs. j
HELP aids design arid permit evaluation but
requires good judgment in its use.
User must insure the integrity of the design
and data; therefore, good understanding of
the HELP model and landfill design is
required. ;
-107-
-------
Description
HELP is a quasi-two-dimensional,
gradually varying, deterministic,
computer-based water budget model.
HELP performs daily sequential
analyses to generate daily, monthly,
and annual estimates of runoff,
evapotranspiration, lateral drainage,
leakage through covers, leachate
collection, leakage detection, and
leakage through clay liners and FMLs.
Figure 1. Schematic profile view of a typical hazardous waste landfill.
First
subprofile
i
i
Second
subprofile
Third
subprofile
Precipitation ,Vegetation
T ^ !
ฎ percolation layer i Topsoil
Geomembrane liner ^^ i CJ3V
(^ Barrier soil layer *
Evapotransplration RunoH
.V 4 ^ ^ฃ~%]A,
1 Infittrationl j
Lateral drainage
Slope1
Percolation
I i
i
Cap or
cover
r
ฉ layer ; Waste T
_. Lateral drainage layer
ฉ ' Sand Latera
(leachat
' jyx Lateral drainage net-^ _,ซซ-+
Geomembrane liner .^ ^*^ Latera
ฉ Lateral drainage ^ W?*
ฉ "^^-S^Ce^O^-^
Barrier soil liner Draln^
pipe
I Clav
(drainage
a collection)
:^ฃ^ "
(drainage
scoltocAlon)
Uaximurn
drainage J ,
distance 1
Geomembrane
liner system
Composite
liner system
r
i Y Percolation (leakage)
-------
Approach
Require only readily available data
Assist in data selection
Select routines that:
Are well accepted
Are computationally efficient
Have minimum data needs
Account for all major design parameters
Make it user-friendly
Package it in a form that can be widely
used (PC executables plus source code)
-109-
-------
II. Solution Techniques
for Surface
Simulation Processes in the HELP Model
-110-
-------
Infiltration
Result of a surface water balance:
\
Infiltration = precipitation -
snowfall + snqwmelt - runoff -
surface evaporation
Infiltration (continued)
Precipitation from input (several options)
Snowfall equals precipitation on days with mean
temperatures below 32ฐF
Snowmelt computed by SNOW-17 Model
Runoff computed by SGS curve number method
Surface evaporation limited to the smaller of the
potential evapotranspiration and the sum of
interception and snow accumulation
Potential evapotranspi ration computed by a
modified Penman method
Interception computed by Morton relationship
-------
Runoff
(Based on SCS Runoff Curve No. Method and CREAMS Model)
Rainfall, P
S = Maximum
retention F Q
(SCS assumption)
S P-l.
F = (P-I.)-Q
(P-I.)-Q= Q (P-l.)2
S P-l. S + (P-I.
I, = 0.2S {SCS assumption )
(P-0.2S)2
P + 0.8S
Hydrology: Solution of Rainoff Equation
'-0.2S)2
P+0.8S
Direct
runoff (Q)
in inches
Curves for this Dheet are for
the case I./0.2S, so that
15678
, Rainfall (P) in inches
9 10 11 12
-117-
-------
CN = f (landjuse, soil group,
antecedent moisture)
! CN,,
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP.
LAND USE DESCRIPTION
Cultivated land: Without conservation treatment
With conservation treatment
Pasture or range land: Poor condition
Good condition
Meadow: Good condition
Wood or forest land: Thin stand, poor cover,
no mulch <
Good cover
Open spaces, lawns, parks, golf courses,
cemeteries, etc.
Good condition: Grass cover on 75% or
more of the area
Fair condition: Grass cover on 50% to
75% of the area |
A
72
62
68
39
30
45
25
39
49
B
81
71
79
61
58
66
55
61
69
C
88
78
86
74
71
77
70
74
79
D
91
81
89
80
78
83
77
80
84
CN = f (land;use, soil group,
antecedent moisture) (continued)
\ CN,,
LAND USE DESCRIPTION
Commercial and business
i
j
areas (85% impervious)
Industrial districts (72% impervious)
Residential:
t
Average lot size Average % impervious
1/8 acre or less 65
1/4 acre 38 '
1/3 acre
1/2 acre
1 acre
Paved parking lots, roofs,
Streets and roads:
Paved with curbs and
Gravel
Dirt
30
25 i
20
driveways, etc.
storm sewers
!
i
I
| -113-
i
HYDROLOGIC SOIL GROUP
A
89
81
77
61
57
54
51
98
98
76
72
B
92
88
85
75
72
70
68
98
98
85
82
C
94
91
90
83
81
80
79
98
98
89
87
D
95
93
92
87
86
85
84
98
98
91
89
-------
CN = f (land use, soil group,
antecedent moisture) (continued)
Total 5-day antecedent rainfall
Dormant season Growing season
AMC group Inches <
Inches
I
II
III
Less than 0.5
0.5 to 1.1
i
Over 1.1 ;
Less than 1.4
1.4 to 2.1
Over 2.1
HELP Adaptation of SCS
Relationship for CN vs. S
(Based Partially Ion CREAMS Model)
Q _
1,000
where CN,= Curve no. for
UL-
QHj I 'V AMCI condition (dry soil)
SM-0.5(FC+WP)1
0.5 (FC + WP)
Soil water content, SM
J
forSM>0.5(FC+wp)
forSMS0.5(FC+WP)
UL = Upper limit
(saturation)
-114-
-------
1
Evaporative
depth
(related to
root zone)
I i=
where a, = \
Thickn
1/36
5/36
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1/6
1 Weighting
ess factor, W}
1
i
1
>
,
i
f
Wo] '
UL-0.5(FC, + WP,) ' '
0 for SM, < (
0.111
0.397
0.254
0.127
0.063
0.032
0.016
0.5(FC + WP)
).5(FC + WP)
How To Obtain CM
CNi = KoCNii + K-jCNz +
K/^HI o.l/ /**M A
2l*Nlr + iV3WปIMin
where Ko, Ki, Ka, Ka =
best-fit polynomial
coefficients using SCS
table of CNi vs. CNn
values
i
;
CNfor
condition II
100
99
98
97
96
95
94
93
I
92
91
I
90
89
38
37
CNfor
I
100
97
94
91
89
87
85
83
81
80
78
76
75
73
conditions
III
100
100
99
99
99
98
98
98
97
97
96
96
95
95
: -115-
-------
How To Obtain CNi (continued)
CNfor
condition 11
86
85
84
83
82
81
80
79
78
77
76
75
74
CNfor
l|
72
70
68
67
66
64
63
62
60
59
58
57
55
conditions
III
94
94
' 93
93
92
1 92
91
91
90
89
89
88
88
How To Obtain CNi (continued)
CNfor
condition II
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
64
63
62
61
CN for conditions
I
54
53
52
51
50
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
-116-
III
87
86
86
85
84
84
83
82
82
81
80
79
78
-------
Figure 2. Relation between SCS curve number and default
soil texture number for various levels of vegetation.
100
80
Curve
number
60
40
20
1 - Bare ground
2 - Grass (poor)
3 - Grass (fair)
4 - Grass (good)
5 - Grass (excellent)
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15
CoS FS LFS ! FSL SiL CL SC C
Soil texture number
Ad just merit of CNn for
Frozen Soil
If CNn for unfrozen soil <80, then CNn
for frozen soil set to 95
If CNn for unfrozen soil >80, then CNn
for frozen soil set to 98
(Based on CREAMS model)
-117-
-------
Adjustment of CN for Slope and Slope Length
Rainfall rate I
Infiltration rate I
Larger slope
Shorter slope length
Shorter travel time
Shorter travel time
Shorter travel time
Decreases infiltration
Increases runoff
Increases CN
Runoff
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length
Approach
Used KINEROS kinematic wave model with variable
infiltration
Examined following variables:
Soil texture class
Loamy sand Parameters: Sat. hyd. cond.
Sandy loam : Capillary drive
Loam Porosity
Clay loam ; Max. rel. sat.
Level of vegetation ,
Good grass (bluegrass sod)
Manning's n = 0.05; interception cap. = 0.067 in. (LAI=4)
Poor grass (clipped range)
Manning's n = 0.05; interception cap. = 0.033 in. (LAI=2)
-118-
-------
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
Approach (Continued)
Examined following variables:
Rainfall depth, duration, and time distribution
Storm 1:1.1-in. depth, 1-h duration, 2nd quartile Huff dist.
Storm 2: 3.8-in. depth, 6-h duration, balanced dist.
Slope
0.04, 0.100.20, 0.35. and 0.50 ft/ft
Slope length
50,100, 250, and 500 ft
Computed CN from runoff predicted by KINEROS
considering slope and slope length
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
Regression Analysis
Independent variable based on kinematic wave
theory:
'Travel time > - - f - 2 AV3 ^. N -2/3
v
from top to bottom
of plane
1.5
Of-1)
1/3
lฃ_
S
1.49
n
where n = Manning's roughness coefficient
i = steady-state rainfall rate
I = steady-state infiltration rate
-119-
-------
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
Regression Analysis (Continued)
Independent variable = !
S*
i i
where L* =
S* =
500ft j
S i
0.04 ft/ft i
100-CN
Dependent variable =
100-CN0
where CN = CN adjusted for slope and slope length
CN0 = CN selected by HELP model based on vegetation
and soil texture '
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
i
Regression Analysis (Continued)
Regression Equation:
= 100-(100-CN0)
-120-
-------
Adjustment of CM for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
_^^_^_^^_^^^__^_^^_^_^_^____^^_^^_.P_i^^.^^_________i__OT_^^^^^^^^^_
Conclusions \
Slope has little affect on CN in the following
cases:
Case 1. Low intensity rainfall on low CN plots
(high infiltration rates, dense vegetation). Most
rainfall infiltrated regardless of slope.
Case 2. High intensity rainfall on high CN plots
(low infiltration rates, sparse vegetation).
Approaches impervious surface where most
rainfall runs off regardless of slope.
Adjustment of CN for Slope and
Slope Length (continued)
Conclusions (Continued)
Slope has most affect on CN when daily rainfall is
about equal to the daily infiltration capacity. That
is, slope is important for soils with saturated
hydraulic conductivities in the general range of
0.1 to 1.0 in7day (3 x 10-6 to 3 x 10-5 cm/s).
Regression equation slightly overpredicts CN for
Case 1; however, this overprediction has a
minimal effect because CN is still very low.
Regression equation closely predicts the CN
adjustment for Case; 2.
-121-
-------
Runoff and Infiltration
I CM,, Input by user
MIR taken from
default aoll data
j.
f(CN,,)
for,T<32
for T i 32 Md Snow, > 0
lor IE 32 ind Snow, o
Q,= p<-
' Pi:ป
_L
Compute surface water evaporation, ESS,
_L
Infiltration, IN, =,P, - Q, - ESS,
I I CN|| = f(MIR) I
Assumptions and Limitations
Runoff: \
SCS curve number routine applicable for landfills
Cumulative runoff independent of duration and
intensity :
Runoff nearly independent of surface slope or
curve number adjustable for slope
No surface run-on i
Infiltration limited by saturated hydraulic
conductivity of soil profile
Curve number not adjusted for seasonal
variations in vegetation
-122-
-------
Snowmelt Case 1
T < 32ฐF
No precip
t t I
GM = 0.5 mm/day
(If soil not frozen)
Runoff, Os = O
M, = 0
os, = o
Snow, = Snow,., - GM,
Snowmelt Case 2
I I * i
GM = 0.5 mm/day
(If soil not frozen)
Runoff, Os = O
M =
Snow, = Snow,.! + Pre, - GM,
-123-
-------
Snowmelt Case 3
T > 32ฐF
No precip
GM = 0.5 mm/day
(If soil not frozen)
Runoff, Os
Snow', = Snow,_, - GM,
M,'= potential melt = MF.(TC| -0ฐC)
25.4
M,=
M,'
for M,'< Snow',
Snow', for M,1 > Snow',
Snowmelt Case 3 (continued)
MF,
mm
day-ฐC
5.2
(Accounts for variation in solar radiation)
Northern hemisphere
Mar 21
Southern hemisphere
Sep 21
Sriow, = Snow1, - Os,
Mar 21
-124-
-------
Snowmelt Case 4
T>32ฐF
Rain on snow, ROS
t t_t
GM = 0.5 mm/day
(If soil not frozen)
Runoff, Os
Snow,' = SnowM - GM
M,'= potential melt
M,=
M,'
Snow',
for M,'< Snow',
for M,'> Snow1,
Oi) = M, + ROSl-AS,-Fml
Snow, = Snow',-0,,
Prediction of Frozen Soil
I
When soil is frozen, the HELP model
makes the following changes:
Runoff curve number is increased;
infiltration is decreased
i
Ground melt of snow is zero
Soil evaporation is zero
Plant transpiration is zero
> Soil considered frozen when the mean
temperature of the previous 30 days first
drops below 32ฐF
-125-
-------
Prediction of Frozen Soil
(Continued)
Soil considered unfrozen when there
have been DPS more days above
freezing than below, where DPS is a
function of: '
Maximum daily solar radiation (based
on latitude) times 0.75 for winter cloud
cover)
Local mean daily solar radiation for
December during first year of HELP
model simulation
Temperature
(OF)
Mean daily !
Trailing 30-day mean
40
20
Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov |Dee Jart Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
-126-
-------
Surface Evaporation
I. Surface evaporation = evaporation
of rainfall interception, snow, and
snowmelt runoff.
il. Evaporation of rainfall interception
(SNOWj = 0 and MI = 0)
ESS: =
oi
for E_ < INT
OI
INT
for E01 > INT, j
I
Surface Evaporation
o o ฐo
oฐ0o0
0 000ฐ
III. Definition of dew point temperature
Vapor pressure, e = partial pressure of H2O (gas)
Saturation vapor pressure, e. = maximum vapor
pressure for a given temperature !
Relative humidity. RH = x 100
e.
Dew point temperature = the temperature at which water vapor starts to condense
Equilibrium
T = 40'F
e.= 0.122 psia
Equilibrium
T = 50'F
ซ. = 0.178 psia
T = 50'F
e = 0.122 psia
e, = 0.17? psia
RH = 69%
T =|40-F (dew pt.)
e = 0.122 psia
e, = 0.122 psia
RH = 100%
= 39'F
e = 0.116
e,= 0.116
RH = 100%
: -127-
-------
Surface Evaporation
IV. Evaporation of Snow / \ Mฐ
and Snowmelt Runoff V1 ' V i
(Snow, > 0 or M, > 0) \/T *"* > 1
RH . 100
. e,
r
i RH ป quartorty humltSty
i Tปmsan dally temp.
t ! t
Dow pt. ซ mean
dally tamp.
' Computadawpt
./>VNO ' /\ NO
Xrmw ^^^"""""y ^ 7- _..._X *
y Yes
/\. No
XDewppv
< < snow X^,
X temp. XRH .
jnwwatertwnp. ป32ฐF ^v^3*
Air over snowpack
to saturated with
WO(g). NoETIs
1 calculated.
Tur
f*
*>?/
Vm (Assume*
32ฐF.) Air
saturated
ETIs
RH.100%
I '
nowm alt temp. ป
sversnowmeltls
wlttiH2O(g). No
calculated.
ESW, = Oa + Snow,
All snowmelt runoff
and all snow Is
evaporated.
All energy used to melt the snow.
No ET is calculated.
O,, = energy required to convert snowmen liquid to vapor
0.1372 O.| = energy required to convert snowmelt ice to snowmelt liquid
ESW, = ฃ0
Only a portion of snowmelt runoff is
evaporated.
01.1372 O,, = energy required to convert snowmelt ice to vapor
ESW, = O,r + 0.88 (E0j-1.1372 O.,)
All snowmelt runoff and a portion of
snow is evaporated.
Snow,= energy required to convert snow liquid to vapor
Snowi .'
a energy required to convert snow ice to vapor
80
80 cal converts 1 g ice into liquid water
583 cal converts 1 g liquid water into vapor at 70ฐF -^- = 0.1372
80 + 583 = 663 cal converts 1 g ice Into vapor 583
583
663
= 0.88
-128-
-------
Interception
where IN^ =
o.osf
cv 1
14,000j
for CV< 14,000
0.05 for CM* 14,000
CV= aboveground biomass in k^ha
INT,
INTm
0.9999 INT,
10
I RAIN
' INT.,
Potential Evapotranspiration
Potential ET = E
01
PENR. + PENA.
(25.4)(58.3)
PENR = radiative; component of
Penman equation
PENA = aerodynamic advection
component of Penman equation
i -129-
-------
Potential Evapotranspiration
(Continued)
= -- ; Rnl
A, + Y j
function of ; daily net
daily temp. solar radiation
Rni=(1-cc)Rsi-Rbi I
[0.^3 for SNO, = 0]
where a = albedo = 4
0.60 forSNO,>0
* ' .
R,i = incoming solar radiation on day i
Rbi = long-wave radiation flux on day i (function of humidity, daily
temperature, latitude, and Julian date)
Potential Evapotranspiration
(Continued)
PEN As = Y 1 5.36 (1 + 0.2394u) (eozi - e2i )
function of | function of avg. vertical vapor
daily temp. ! annual wind speed pressure
| gradient
eozi = saturation vapor pressure on day i
ezj = atmospheric vapor pressure on day i
(function of daily temperature and quarterly
humidity) i
-130-
-------
Evapotranspiration
Compute potential ET, Eol i
No
Yes
ESS0| = INT, = O,, + Snow,
No
Yes
Compute potential soil evap, ES0,
Surface evap, ESS, = E0,
Soil evap, ES, = O
Plant transp, EP, = O
ES, =
EP, =
Compute cumulative soil evap minus lirlll, ES1TM
ES1TM =ฃ (ESfc-IN,,) i
torn |
(m = last day when ES1T = O) "
Compute upper limit, U = (Con - 3) ปซ
25.4 i
AvallaM* water-
water In excess of
wilting point In top
half of evaporative
zone not exceeding
18 In.
! (Dry)
i No
No
Compute t, = no. of days
since ES1T, > U
1
3 25.4
ES0, = available water
I-131-
-------
ES^E^-ESS,
EP, = O
Compute potential plant tramp, EP0 = - E,t (LAI,)
Notes
ESj is extracted from evaporative zone starting
at the top segment. Water is extracted down to
wilting point in a given segment. Then
extraction occurs in the segment below.
i
EPj is extracted from the seven segments of
evaporative zone based on weighting factors:
EPiG) = EPi * WF(j). !
If EPj(j) > PAWC(j)/4i then EPi (j) = PAWC(j)/4 and
demand in excess of available water is exerted
below segment, if possible.
432-
-------
1
Vegetative Growth
LAI; = a measure of aboveground biomass
on day i i
LAImax = a measure of maximum possible
aboveground biomass under selected
conditions \
LAI; function of:
LAImax I
LAIj is a linear function of LAImax (during first 3/4 of
growing season)
LAImax = f (crop,; soil fertility, fertilizer, seed density,
climate, tillage)
Vegetative Growth (continued)
> LAI; function Of (continued):
l
Daily solar radiation: Linear function
during early part of growing season
Mean daily temperature: LAIj is
restricted by low temperature
Soil moisture; LAIs is restricted by low
soil moisture i
Elapsed fraction of growing season:
LA); decreases after 3/4 of growing
season has elapsed
-133-
-------
Vegetative Growth (continued)
i
ป LAImax input by user
(recommendations provided by
HELP model during data input)
ป Growing season dates selected by
HELP model based on geographical
location, f(air temp)
Outside growing season, plant
biomass is used instead of LAI to
compute potential soil evaporation
Assumptions and Limitations
Evapotranspiration:
I
Penman method based on surface
energy
Ritchie method applicable for all
materials |
Constant evaporative depth
o Constant albedo typical for grasses
-134-
-------
Assumptions and Limitations
(Continued)
Function of mean annual wind and
quarterly humidity
Representative synthetic daily
temperature and solar radiation
Representative leaf area indices from
vegetative growth model
Executable Files
HELP3.BAT Batch file to start Version 3
H3.BAT Batch file used in starting
Version 3
H3LOGO.EXE Prints logo screen, preface,
and disclaimer
H3MENU.EXE Generates main menu and
controls execution
WEATHER.EXE Builds and edits weather
data files
i-135-
-------
Executable; Files (continued)
\
SYNGEN.EXE Generates synthetic weather
data |
DESIGN.EXE Builds and edits soil and
design data file
OUTPUT.EXE Builds data file for controlling
simulation
HELP3O.EXE Runs: simulation and
generates desired output
LIST.COM Displays output to screen
Permanent Data Files
TAPE2.NEW
TAPE3.A
TAPE3.I
TAPE3.N
TAPE3.P
Default evapotranspiration data, normal
mean monthly precipitation and
temperature data, and latitude and
synthetic weather generator coefficients
for up to 183 U.S. cities
Default daily precipitation data for
states beginning in A through H
i
Default daily precipitation data for
states beginning in I through M
Default daily precipitation data for
states beginning in N through O
Default daily precipitation data for
states beginning in P through W
-------
On-Line Help and
User Guide Files
USE1HELP.HLP
USE2HELP.HLP
MAINHELP.HLP
CLIMHELP.HLP
SOILHELP.HLP
Rart 1 of the User's Guide
Part 2 of the User's Guide
i
On-line help messages for
main menu, execution,
and output
On-line help messages for
weather data input
On-line help messages for
soil and design data input
On-Line Help and
User Guide Files (continued)
USE1TAGS.HLP
USE2TAGS.HLP
MAINTAGS.HLP
CLIMTAGS.HLP
SOILTAGS.HLP
List of message tags and
locations for USE1HELP.HLP
i
List of message tags and
locations for USE2HELP.HLP
List of message tags and
locations for MAINHELP.HLP
i
List of message tags and
locations for CLIMHELP.HLP
List of message tags and
locations for SOILHELP.HLP
-137-
-------
User-Generated Files
OUTPARAM.DAT Simulation control file containing
names of data files to be used in
the simulation, simulation
duration, units for the output,
and types or levels of detail
desifed in the output.
SOIL.USR Library file of user-specific
characteristics for soils, wastes,
and other materials.
*.D4 HELP Version 3 daily
precipitation data files
*.D7 HELP Version 3 daily mean
temperature data files
User-Generated Files
(Continued)
*.D10 HELP Version 3 soil and
design data files
*.D11 HELP Version 3
evapotranspiration data files
*.D13 HELP Version 3 daily solar
radiation data files
HELP Version 3 output files
438-
-------
Weather Data Conversion Files
NOAAPREC.EXE Converts NOAA tape format daily
precipitation data file to a HELP
Versibn 3 precipitation data file
(*.D4)
NOAATEMP.EXE Converts NOAA tape format daily
maximum and minimum or mean
daily itemperature data file to a
HELP Version 3 mean temperature
data file (*.D7)
NOAASRAD.EXE Converts NOAA tape format daily
solar radiation data file to a HELP
Version 3 solar radiation data file
(*.D13)
Weather Data Conversion Files
^ (Continued) ___
Converts Earth Info Climate Data
ASCII export file for daily
precipitation from CD-ROM disk to a
HELP Version 3 precipitation data file (*.D4)
CLlMPREC.EXE
CLIMTEMP.EXE
ASCIPREC.EXE
I
Converts Earth Info Climate Data
ASCII export files for daily maximum
temperature and daily minimum
temperature from CD-ROM disk to a
HELP Version 3 mean temperature
data flip (*.D7)
Converts or appends a year of daily
precipitation data from an ASCII data
file to a HELP Version 3 precipitation
data file (*.D4)
-139-
-------
Weather Data Conversion Files
(Continued)
ASCITEMP.EXE
ASCISRAD.EXE
CANPREC.EXE
Converts |or appends a year of daily mean
temperature data from an ASCII data file to
a HELP Version 3 mean temperature data
file (*.D7);
Converts or appends a year of daily solar
radiation data from an ASCII data file to a
HELP Version 3 solar radiation data file
(*.D13) !
i
Converts AES Canadian Climatological
Data compressed or uncompressed
diskette format daily precipitation data
file to a HELP Version 3 precipitation
data file (f.D4)
Weather Data Conversion Files
(Continued)
CANTEMP.EXE
CANSRAD.EXE
i
Converts AES Canadian Climatological
Data compressed or uncompressed
diskette format daily mean temperature
data file to a HELP Version 3 mean
temperature data file (*.D7)
Converts AES Canadian Climatological
Data compressed or uncompressed
diskette if ormat hourly global solar
radiation data file to a HELP Version 3
solar radiation data file (*.D13)
-140-
-------
111. Weather Data
Requirements
Evapotranspiration Data
Latitude, degrees
Evaporative zone
Maximum leaf area
Julian dates of the
growing season
Average annual wind
Average quarterly
depth, in. or cm
index
start and end of the
speed, mph or kph
relative humidities, %
-141-
-------
Leaf Area Indices
Bare ground
Poor stand of grass
Fair stand of grass
Good stand of
Excellent stand
grass
of grass
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.3
5.0
Rainfall Input Options
Default 5-yr historical daily data
for 102 U.S. cities
cities
Synthetically
for 139 U.S.
specified normal
values)
User created/edited daily data
generated daily data
(optional user-
mean monthly
-142-
-------
Rainfall Input Options (continued)
I ^^^^^^^_______^^^^^^^^
Imported from ah ASCII file on
diskette: \
m NOAA tape format
Earth Info Climate Data ASCII export file
ASCII file contaihing only rainfall values
HELP Version 2 rainfall file (DATA4 format)
Environment Canada Atmospheric
Environment Service Climatological Data
file in compressed or uncompressed format
Temperature! Input Options
I
i
i
Synthetically generated daily
data for 183 U.S. cities (optional
user-specified normal mean
monthly value s)
User created/edited daily data
1143-
-------
Temperature Input Options
(Continued)
> Imported from an ASCI! file on diskette:
NOAA tape format (minimum and maximum or
mean) ;
Earth Info Climate Data ASCII export file
ASCII file containing only temperature values
HELP Version 2 temperature file (DATA7 format)
Environment Canada Atmospheric Environment
Service Climatological Data file in compressed or
uncompressed format
ป In addition to daily lvalues, the model
requires normal mean temperature values
Solar Radiation Input
Options
! __^_ ____^
i
Synthetically generated
daily data for 183 U.S.
cities (optional user-
specified latitude)
User created/edited daily
data !
i-144-
-------
Solar Radiation Input
(Continued)
Imported from an ASCII file on diskette
NOAA file in tape format
Earth info Climate Data ASCII export file
ASCII file containing only solar radiation
values
HELP Version 2 solar radiation file (DATA 13
format) j
Environment Canada Atmospheric
Environment Service Climatological Data file in
compressed or uncompressed format
Synthetic Weather Generator
USD A Agricultural Research Service Model
WGEN by Richardson and Wright (1984)
Computes daily precipitation by a first-
order Marchov chain model using a two-
parameter gamma distribution function
with coefficients!varying monthly
Computes daily temperature and solar
radiation values by weakly stationary
normal distribution functions with
coefficients varying monthly
-145-
-------
Monthly Precipitation
Coefficients
Probability of rain occurring on a day
following a wet day
I
Probability of rain occurring on a day
following a dry day
Two distribution coefficients, a and p
Values stored in data file TAPE2.NEW
for 139 U.S. cities
Nine Temperature
Coefficients
Means of Tmax for dry days, Tmax for wet days, and
Tmin for ail days I
Amplitudes of Tmax for all days and Tmin for all days
Means of coefficient of variation of Tmax for all days
and coefficient of variation of Tmin for all days
Amplitudes of coefficient of variation of Tmax for all
days and coefficient of variation of Tmin for all days
Values stored in data file TAPE2.NEW for 183 U.S.
cities
-146-
-------
Solar Radiation Coefficients
Mean of solar radiation values for
dry days
Amplitudes of
values for dry
Mean of solar
wet days
Values stored in
TAPE2.NEWfor
solar radiation
days
radiation values for
data file
183 U.S. cities
-147-
-------
IV. Solution
Techniques
for Subsurface
Figure 1. Schematic profile view of a typical hazardous waste landfill.
J
First
subprofile
i
*
Second
subprofile
i
Third
subprofile
'
[
PfOClpttalion Vaantatlon
1 .Vegetation Evapotranspirattor, RunoB
ฎ percolation layer TjOpSOil i inlitiration f j
-_ ;Sand Lateral drainage
Geomembrane liner _^Q tClaV Slope
ฉ Barrier soil layer I Percolation
. | 1
ฉ layer Waste f
_. Lateral drainage layer ! ,
ฉ Sand Lateral drainage
| (leachate collection)
1 ff\ Lateral drainage net ^ ^-J "ซ^w '
ฉ Lateral drainage ~\ \ ^.kScoIS,)
P'P6 | Maximum
ClaV drainage 1 .
' \ distance 1
Cap or
cover
r
Geomembrane
liner system
L
Composite
liner system
r
Percolation (leakage)
4148-
-------
Water Routing
* Infiltration
Recirculation and _,.
subsurface inflow *C_
Subsurface inflow R~
T
Recirculation and '
J1/36 A
M T
1ซ _
w EvaP-
1/8 depth
! 1/8 I
:ซ t
Unsaturated vertical drainage
Lateral drainage to collection
__. and roclrculafJon
Percolation/leakage
i
subsurface inflow ^-r-
Subsurface inflow f"
\
i
i
' Unsaturated vertical drainage
' Lateral drainage to collection
__ and reclrculaitlon
' Percolation/leakage
t
Cover
Soil
I
Drain
Liner
Waste
Drain
Liner
Vertical Drainage
q = drainage rate (L/T)
k = saturated or Unsaturated hydraulic conductivity (L/T)
h = piezometric head (L)
1 = distance in direction of flow (L)
p = fluid pressure (FA.2)
7 = specific weight fluid (FA.3)
z = elevation (L) {
Assume: Fluid pressure is constant throughout a segment.
Free drainage at bottom of each segment.
Saturated hydraulic conductivity of segments above the barrier soil layer
within a subprofile is similar or increases with increasing depth.
,0 ^r-1 j
q=k
-149-
-------
1. Continuity equation applied to segment j
Average inflow into Average outflow from Change in soil moisture
segment J between - segment j between = storage in segment j
midtime i-1 and i midtime i-1 and i j between midtime i-1 and i
PBn(l) * RH(|) + Slj.,0) + DRfl) + R|Q) + SIKI)
! 2
PRปซ+1) + DB|fl+1)
.SM,(i)-SMM<ป
2. Darcy's Law applied to segment J
DRi(j + 1) = !
(3 + 2/Xi)
L|UL(j)-RS(j)
3. Two equations with two unknowns j
Knowns: DRM(j), DR,a), DRM(|+1), RM(j), R,a>, SIM(j), 81,0), ETMG), ET,(j), SMHfl)
Unknowns: DR,Q+1), SM,0) j
Two equations solved iteratively by bisection method over time step ranging from 30 minutes to 6 hours.
Unsaturated Hydraulic
Conductivity
Uses Brooks-Corey equation and
Campbell equation;
Requires residual soil water content,
pore-size distribution index, and
bubbling pressure!
Parameters computed from wilting point,
field capacity, and porosity
Used to compute evaporation coefficient
-150-
-------
Brooks-Cbrey Equation
SM-RS yB
j __ ~~""~L"
P-R$ L ฅ
SM = soil moisture
RS = soil residual saturation
i
P = porosity j
Y = capillary pressure (suction)
\]/B = bubbling pressure
A, = pore-size distribution index
r
Campbell liquation
SM-RS
_ P-RS
Ku = unsaturated hydraulic conductivity
Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity
SM = soil moisture, 0
i
RS = residual saturation, OR
P = porosity, 4> j (saturation)
A, = pore-size distribution index
-151-
-------
Assumptions land Limitations
So/7 water routing:
Darcianflow \
Spatially homogeneous layers of
material
t
Temporarily uniform layers of material
Brooks-Corey relationship applicable
No upward movement of water between
layers; upward movement by ET only
Assumptions land Limitations
(Continued)
Soil water routing (Continued):
Head loss gradient of unity vertically except in
soil liner or restrictive vertical percolation layer
Occurs below evaporative zone only when
moisture content greater than field capacity or
when soil suction of underlying layer is greater
than soil suction in layer
Minimum moisture content is wilting point
Water routing allowed in evaporative zone at all
moisture contents I
-------
Barrier Soil Liner Percolation
Use Darcy's law
Assume barrier soil liner is always saturated and
drains freely
TS i
!
where QP = barrier soil liner percolation
Ks = saturated hydraulic conductivity
TH = average head or depth of saturation across
top of barrier soil liner
TS = thickness of barrier soil liner
Assumptions and Limitations
i
Percolation: \
i
Darcianflow
Spatially homogeneous layers of
material j
Temporally juniform layers of
material j
i
Percolationj only if head exists on
surface of liner
-153-
-------
Assumptions and Limitations
(Continued)
I
Head is distributed across entire surface
of liner i
i
Liner underlies entire surface of landfill
Permanently saturated liner
Zero head at base of liner (above water
table) except when the bottom layer is a
liner that has subsurface inflow
Leak Schematic
1
t-
t
1T 1
T |
I j
t i
,i
**i f*-
: i
i i
> + +
i i
!i
i
i i
i t \
V
r
AH,
AH,
AH3
>-j \+ -RH
-154-
-------
Soil or waste layer
:(Ks)
to.
Liner Design
Case 1
Legend
1 HlghperniMMIIty
1 soil or wast*
2 GtonrambniM
-155-
-------
Geomembrane (GM) Leakage
Equations Case 1
Scenario
High K/GM/High K
Vapor transport
Placement quality (contact
with layer having lower K)
1-6 Bad (free drainage)
a. Pinhoie
b. Defect
Equations
H R
hw
Q
1
hw
hw
2
3
Geomembrane
Case
Liner Design
2
(a)
1
2
3
Legend
High permeability
oil or waste
Geomambrano
Medium permeability
oil or watte
(b)
(c)
-156-
-------
I
Geomembrane (GM) Leakage
Equations Case 2
Scenario
Med K/GM/High K
High K/GM/Med K
Med K/GM/Med K
I
Vapor transport !
Placement quality (contact
with layer having lower K)
1 Perfect j
2,3,4 Excellent ,
5 Bad (free drainage)
a. Pinholes >
b. Defects i
Equations
H
hw
hw
hw
hw
hw
Q
1
4
5
2
3
Geomembrane Liner Design
Case 3
(a)
Legend
1 High permeability
' soil or waste
jj) Geomembrano
Medium permeability
3 soil or waste
A Low permeability soil
H or waste
Layer type 1 or 2
(c)
-157-
-------
Geomembrane (GM) Leakage
Equations Case 3
Scenario {
High K/GIWLow K j
MedK/GM/LowK j
Low K (Layer Type 1 or 2)/GM/liow K
Vapor transport
Placement quality (contact
with layer having lower K)
1 Perfect
2 Excellent
3 Good
4 Poor
5 Bad (free drainage)
a. Pinholes
b. Defects
Equations
H
hw
hw
hw
hw
hw
hw
hw
7
8
9
Q
1
4
5
5
5
2
3
Layer type 3
Liner Design
4
Layer type 3
Legend
High ptrmMblllty
toll or waste
Goomambrano
o Modlum permeability
0 soil or waste
M Low permeability toll
^ or waste
Layer type 3
(0
-158-
-------
Geomembrane (GM) Leakage
Equations Case 4
Scenario (
Low K (Layer Type 3)/GM/Higri K
Low K (Layer Type 3)/GM/Med K
Low K (Layer Type 3)/GM/Low K
Vapor transport
Placement quality (contact
with layer having lower K)
1 Perfect
2 Excellent
3 Good
4 Poor
5 Bad (free drainage]
a. Pinholes |
b. Defects i
Equations
H
hw+H,
hw+Hg
hw+H8
hw+Hg
hw+H,
R Q
1
4
7 5
8 5
9 5
hw+H3
hw+H8
2
3
Geomembrane Liner Design
Case 5
! Layer typ* tor 2
ซ High pcmiMbltKy coll or
1 WMtซ
o Medium permeability toll
orwtst*
a Low pcnnublltty ซol( or
ฐ WWW
4 Qซonwmbrwia
5 Gtottxtll*
Layer type 1 or
(9)
Layซrtypซ1 or2
-159-
-------
i
Geomembrane (GM) Leakage
Equations Case 5
Scenario
High K/GM/GT/Low K
High K/GM/GT/Med K
Med K/GWl/GT/Low K
Med K/GT/GM/High K
Med K/GT/GM/GT/Med K |
Low K (Layer Type 1 or 2)/GT/GM/High K
Low K (Layer Type 1 or 2)/GT/JGM/Mecl K
Low K (Layer Type 1 or 2)/GT/GM/GT/Low K
Equations
Vapor transport
Placement quality (contact
with layer having lower K)
6 Geotextile (GT)
H
hw
hw
10
Geomembrane Liner Design
Case 6
Layer type 3
(a)
ซ
Layer type 3
Legend
High permeability toll or
2 Medium permeability soil
or waste
2 Low permeability soil or
waste
4 Geomembrane
5 Geotextile
Layer type 3
(0
-160-
-------
V. Soil arid Design
Data Requirements
Default
Soil Data
Soil type number (1ป42)
15 soils |
8 Compacted soils
2 Municipal wastes
3 Ashes and 1 mining slag
2 Barrier soils for soil liners
2 Synthetic (drainage nets
8 Flexible membrane liner materials
Soil moisture (optional)
-161-
-------
Figure 3-6 Comparison of USCS and USDA Soil Terminology
(From Meyer'and Knight, 1961)
Percent clay so
Percent silt
/S.ndycliy\ \ ,
/..\X
CUy k>ซn
100 90 80 TO SO! 50 40 30 20 10 0
Percent sand
Soil Data Corrections
Vegetation effects:
Increase saturated hydraulic
conductivity due to root channels
Multiply unvegetated value by up
to a factor of 5.0 as a function of
the maximum leaf area index
-------
User
il Data
Soil texture number (0 or 43-142):
Porosity, vol/vol
Field capacity, yol/vol
Wilting point, vol/vol
Saturated hydraulic conductivity,
cm/sec !
Initial soil moisture, vol/vol (optional)
Water
content, 0-30
vol/vol
Plant available
water capacity \
Witting point
Residual saturation
Sand Sandy Loam Silty
loam loam
Clay
loam
Silty
clay
Clay
-163-
-------
Unsaturatejd Hydraulic
Conductivity
Uses Brooks-Corey equation and
Campbell equation!
Requires residual soil water content,
pore-size distribution index, and
bubbling pressure
Parameters computed from wilting point,
field capacity, and porosity
Used to compute evaporation coefficient
Soil Water Initialization
User-specified:
Program starts simulation with user-specified values
Soil water of barrier soil!liners assigned to value of
porosity j
Program-initialized: !
Soil water of barrier soil liners assigned to value of
porosity
Soil water of vertical percolation and lateral drainage
layers assigned to value' of field capacity
One year of simulation is run using the first year of
rainfall data to finalize initialization
First year is then repeated to start simulation
-164-
-------
Design Parameters
Surface area, acres or hectares
Percent of area where runoff is
possible, % \
\
Runoff curve number
Surface slope
Slope length
Soil texture; (1-26)
Vegetation (1-5)
Design Parameters (continued)
Number and order of layers
Thickness of layers, in. or cm
Types of layers (1-4)
Soil texture (l|l42)/Properties of
layers >
Subsurface inflow into each layer,
in./yr or mm/yr
-165-
-------
Vegetation Codes for Model
Selection of Runoff Curve Number
i
Code I Vegetation
1 I Bare ground
2 Poor
3 | Fair
4 | Good
5 I Excellent
Layer Types
1. Vertical percolation layer:
Nonrestrictive vertical water routing
i
No lateral drainage collection system
2. Lateral drainage layer:
High saturated hydraulic conductivity
Drains to a drainage collection system
Underlain by soil liner or FML
-166-
-------
Layer Types (continued)
3. Barrier soil liner:
i
Low saturated hydraulic conductivity
Restricts vertical water movement
Remains saturated
No ET, lateral drainage, or recirculation
4. Geomembrane liner (FML):
Reduces cross-sectional area of flow
Allows vapor diffusion through membrane
No ET, lateral drainage, or recirculation
Design Parameters
Lateral drainage path lengths from
crest of drainage slope to drain, ft or m
Slopes of liner surface toward drain, %
Percent of lateral drainage from each
drainage system recirculated, %
i
Layer receiving recirculation from each
drainage system employing
recirculation
1-167-
-------
s
Design Parameters (continued)
\
\
Pinhole density of each FML, ft/acre
or ft/hectare
i
Installation defect density of each
FML, ft/acre or ft/hectare
i
FML placement quality (1-6)
Geotextile tranjsmissivity, if used
with FML, cm2/$ec
Pinhole Density
Typically caused by defect in
manufacturing
Nominally 1.0 mm in diameter
Typical density 0.5 to 1.0 holes
per acre
l68-
-------
Installation
Defect Density
Typically, punctures, cuts, cracks, and
seaming flaws
Nominally 5 x 20 mm in size
Typical densities:
Quality Frequency Defects/Acre
u Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Bad
10%
30%
40%
15%
5%
1
3
8
40
100
FML Placement Quality
^^^^^^KK^K^_MOi^^^M^M^HKซ^BBMBBBBBB^^^Ml^^^^^^_
I
1. Perfect (no gap, "sprayed-on" liner)
2. Excellent (laboratory/lysimeter liner)
3. Good (good field liner installation)
4. Fair (poor field! liner installation)
5. Worst case (no seal with soil)
6. Geotextile (separating soil and FML)
-169-
-------
Output Options
Daily values (
Monthly totals and other monthly values
Annual totals and other annual values
i
Simulation summary:
Averages and standard deviations of
monthly and annual totals
Peak daily values for simulation period
End-of-simulation water storage values
-170-
-------
VI. Execution and Output
Volume in drive H has no label
Volume Serial number la 1B52-11F1
Directory of H:\EXEC
ARCHIVE
SOURCE
EXAMPLES
TAPES
HELPS
H3
LIST
DATA10
DATA11
DATA13
DATA4
DATA7
OUTFARAH
HELP30
NOAASRAD
CLIMTEMP
H3LOGO
CANTEMP
NOAAPREC
WEATHER
DESIGIf
ASCIPREC
A
BAT
BAT
COH
D10
Oil
D13
D4
D7
DAT
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
EXE
34828S
39
32
8191
857
IDS
21370
21436
21436
122
285681
44420
41440
31112
43628
41166
315750
202056
59462
12-02-93
12-02-93
02-09-94
12-04-93
01-12-94
02-15-94
02-17-93
04-22-93
10-31-92
10-17-93
10-15-93
10-15-93
10-15-93
10-15-93
02-02-94
10-17-93
02-17-93
01-21-92
02-17-93
02-20-94
10-25-93
02-20-94
04-04-94
12-03-93
12
12
3
2
11
10
9
2
4
9
1
1
1
1
1
9
10
8
1
11
1
11
11
4
:47p
:47p
:03p
:17a
:05p
:32a
:33a
:33p
:5la
:4lp
:20p
:l9p
; Ifip i
:18p
:39p
:22p
:32a
:35p
:56p
:sip
:isp
:50a
:25p
:08p
i
ASCISRAD EXE
ASCI TEMP EXE
CLIKPREC EXE
OUTPUT EXE
CANSRAD EXS
SYHGEN EXE
CANPREC EXE
H3KENU EXE
MOAATEMP EXE
I CLIMHELP HLP \
SOILHELP HLP
USE2TAGS HLP
CLIMTAQS HLP
MAINHELP HLP
USE1TAGS HLP
MAINTAGS HLP
USE2KELP HLP
SOILTAGS HLP
[USE1HELP HLP I
TAPES
TAPES
TAPE2
TAPE3
SOIL
I
H
NEW
P
USR
48 tile(s]
59462 12-03^
5947B 12-03-
42714 01-21-
96552 12-20-
46148 02-20-
70108 12-11-
43628 02-20-
83778 12-20-
46158 12-15-
89200 12-31-
102480 04-05-
405 04-05-
654 12-31-
28400 12-31-
44 12-13-
494 12-31-
107120 04-05-
958 04-05-
75280 12-13-
334848 02-15-
334848 02-16-
110585 10-11-
348288 02-16-
162 10-17-
3568384
3508224
3:57p
3:57p
7:53p
l:48a
ll: 55p
3:l7a
ll:S2P
l:sia
9:48p
4:39p
9:27a
9:29a
4:38p
4:3Sp
2:l7a
4:3Sp
9:29a
9:27a
:l7a
:35p
:14a
:l4p
93
93
92
93
94
93
94
93
92
93
94
94
93
93
93
93
94
94
93
94
94
91
94
93 ll:57p
bytes
bytes free
2:
2:
11:
3:
12:51p
-------
Daily Output Variables
Julian date
Freezing temperatures
indicator
Frozen soil indicator
{
e Precipitation, in. or mm
Runoff, in. or mm
Daily Output Variables (continued)
Evapotranspiration, in. or mm
Soil water content in evaporative
zone, voI/voB
Head on top of all barrier soil
liners/FMLs, in. or cm
Lateral drainage from all subprofiles,
in. or mm
Leakage through all barrier soil
liners/FMLs, iri. or mm
-------
Monthly Output Variables
I
Total precipitation, in. or mm
Total runoff, in. or mm
Total evapotrahspiration, in. or mm
Total subsurface inflow into each
layer, in. or mrn
Total lateral drainage recirculated
from each subprofile, in. or mrn
Monthly Output Variables
(Continued)
Total lateral drainage collected from
each subprofile, in. or mm
!
Total percolation through each
subprofile, in. or mm
Average daily Head on top of each
liner, in. or cm
Standard deviation of daily head on
top of each liner, in. or cm
-173-
-------
Annual Output Variables
Water balance components are given in in., ft3, and %
precipitation; or in mm, m3, and % precipitation
Other components are gh/en in in. and ft3; or in mm
and m3 I
i
Components:
Total precipitation
Total runoff j
Total evapotranspiration
Total percolation through each subprofile
Total lateral drainage; collected from each subprofile
a Total lateral drainage recirculated from each
subprofile j
Annual Output Variables
(Continued)
\
I
Components (continued):
m Total recirculatioh into each layer
Total subsurface
inflow into each layer
Change in water storage
Soil water in profile at start of year
Soil water in profile at end of year
Snow water on surface at start of year
Snow water on surface at end of year
i
-174-
-------
Averages and Standard Deviations
of Monthly Totals and Variables
i
Water balance components are given in
in. or mm; heads are given in in. or cm
Components:
Precipitation
Runoff !
i
E vapotrans pi ration
Percolation through each subprofile
Lateral drainage collected from each
subprofile
Averages and Standard Deviations
of Monthly Totals and Variables
(Continued)
Water balance components (continued):
m Lateral drainage recirculated from
each subprofile
Recirculation into each layer
Subsurface inflow into each layer
Average month 8y head across top of
each liner
-175-
-------
Averages and Standard Deviations
of Annual Totals and Variables
Water balance components are given in in.,
ft3, and % precipitation; or in mm, m3, and %
precipitation
Heads are given in In. or cm
Components: j
Precipitation j
Runoff i
Evapotranspi ration
Percolation through each subprofile
Lateral drainage collected from each subprofile
Averages and Standard Deviations
of Annual Totals and Variables
(Continued)
Components (continued):
m Lateral drainage recirculated from each
subprofile
Recirculation into each layer
Subsurface inflow into each layer
Change in water storage
Head across top of each liner system
U76-
-------
Peak Daily 6utput Variables
I "^^"^^"^^"^^"""^^^M
Water balance components are given in in
and fts, or in mm and m*; heads are given in
in. or cm
ป Components:
Precipitation
Runoff
Evapotranspi ration
Percolation thro jgh each subprofile
Lateral drainage collected from each subprofile
Lateral drainage recirculated from each
subprofile
Peak Daily Output Variables
(Continued)
Water balance components (continued):
* Recirculation into each layer
Average head across top of each liner
Maximum soil water in evaporative zone
(vol/vol)
Minimum soil water in evaporative zone
(vol/vol) |
Snow water on surface
-177-
-------
End-of-Simulafion Values
Soil water content of each
layer, in. or cm, and vol/vol
Snow waterjon surface, in.
or cm
4178-
-------
SENSITIVITY OF COVER
EFFECTIVENESS TO I
DESIGN PARAMETERS !
j
PAUL R. SCHROEDER j
ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
VICKSBURG, MS 39180-6199
I
BAR GRAPH FOR MUNICIPAL COVER DESIGN SHOWING
EFFECT OF TOPSOIL DEPTH, SURFACE VEGETATION, !
AND LOCATIONI
MEAN ANNUAL VALUE, INCHES
60
0 RUNOFF 0 El
GO GOOD GRASS
PQ POOR GRASS
18 10' OF SANDY LOAM
36 36" OF SANDY LOAM
GG PG
18-
SANTA M
GG PG
36
ARIA, CA
/AP01
'-ฃ-
rflANE
'
GG PG
18
SHHEVB
PIRA1
i''.-
ION
(; *t
GG PG
36
PORT, LA
flip
(Hi
ERGO
iL.-
GG PG
18
SCHENEC
LATIO
f^f
N
GG PG
36
JTAOY, NY
BAR GRAPH FOR HAZARDOUS WASTE COVER DESIGN
SHOWING EFFECT OF SURFACE VEGETATION, I
TOPSOIL TYPE, AND LOCATION j
MEAN ANNUAL VALUE, INCHES
& RUNOFF SI EVAPOTBANSPIRATION & LATERAL DRAINAGE
& PERCOLATION
GO GOOD GRASS
PQ POOR GRASS
SL 18" OF SANDY LOAU
SICL IB" OF SJLTY
CLAYEY U)AU
GG PG I GG PG
SL ' I SICL
SANTA MARIA, CA
\l\\\
GG PG GG PG
SL I SICL
SHREVEPORT, LA
GG PG GG PG
SL I SICL
SCHENECTADY, NY
-179-
-------
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
SANDY LOAM TOPSOiL,
0.03 cm/sec DRAIN, 200
POOR GRASS
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE
PERCOLATION
GOOD GRASS
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE
PERCOLATION
s^
1 x 10'7
cm/sec
I
LINER
ft LENGTH, 3% SLOPE
CA
LA
NY
rixcutr or retciriTATtoN
3.0
51.6
41.2
4.2
0.0
52.6
43.2
4.2
4.4
51.9
40.6
3.1
0.2
53.0
43.7
3.1
2.2
50.3
44.0
2.5
0.0
51.0
45.5
2.5
! '
i
!
EFFECTS OF CLIMATE AND VEGETATION
36 INCHES OF SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL
1 x 10-6 cm/sec LINER
CA LA NY
POOR GRASS |'!.HCI:HT OF rmiclFmTiwi
RUNOFF 5.6 4.6 5.5
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 51.8 53.0 52.1
PERCOLATION 42.6 42.4 42.4
GOOD GRASS
RUNOFF 3.1 0.2 3.5
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 55.0 57.2 55.3
PERCOLATION 42.9 42.6 41.2
EFFECTS OF VEGETATION
VEGETATION
O DECREASES RUNOFF GREATLY
O INCREASES EVAPOTRANSPIRATION MODERATELY
O INCREASES LATERAL DRAINAGE MODERATELY
O HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON PERCOLATION
THROUGH THE COVER
-180-
-------
EFFECTS OF TOPSOIL THICKNESS
AND CLIMATE
SANDY LOAM TOPSOIL, POOR GRASS
1 x 10"6 cm/sec LINER
CA LA NY
18 INCHES OF TOPSOIL me, op pHtcirmTio,
RUNOFF 11.2 7.5 13.4
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 51.9 56.9 54.5
PERCOLATION 36.9 35.6 32.1
36 INCHES OF TOPSOIL
RUNOFF 5.6 4.6 5.5
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 51.8 53.0 52.1
PERCOLATION 42.6 42.4 42.4
EFFECTS OF TOPSOIL TYPE AND CLIMATE
0.03 cm/sec DRAIN, 200 ft LENGTH, 3% SLOPE
1 x 10'7 cm/sec LINER, POOR GRASS
SANDY LOAM
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE
PERCOLATION
SILTY CLAYEY LOAM
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE
PERCOLATION
3.0
51.6
41.2
4.2
21.6
61.2
15.0
2.2
4.4
51.9
40.6
3.1
22.3
64.4
11.3
2.0
2.2
50.3
44.0
2.5
19.2
58.6
20.3
1.9
I
EFFECTS OF RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER
RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER DIRECTLY AFFECTS THE RUNOFF QUANTITY
AND THEREFORE THE QUANTITY OF INFILTRATION. AN INCREASE
IN CURVE NUMBER FOR A GIVEN CLIMATE, TOPSOIL AND DESIGN
YIELDS AN INCREASE IN RUNOFF, LATERAL DRAINAGE,
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND PERCOLATION THROUGH THE COVER.
EFFECTS ARE SMALL AT CURVE NUMBERS BELOW 80. SIZE OF
EFFECTS IS CLIMATE, TOPSOIL AND DESIGN DEPENDENT. THE
EFFECT ON PERCOLATION THROUGH THE COVER IS GENERALLY
VERY SMALL.
-181-
-------
EFFECTS OF EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH!
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH INDIRECTLY AFFECTS THE QUANTITIES
OF RUNOFF, EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. LATERAL DRAINAGE AND
PERCOLATION THROUGH THE COVER. AN INCREASE IN EVAPORATIVE
ZONE DEPTH FOR A GIVEN CLIMATE, TOPSOIL AND DESIGN YIELDS
AN INCREASE IN EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND RUNOFF AND A
DECREASE IN LATERAL DRAINAGE AND PERCOLATION THROUGH
THE COVER. EFFECTS ARE SMALL AT DEPTHS ABOVE 18 INCHES.
SIZE OF EFFECTS IS CLIMATE, TOPSOIL AND DESIGN DEPENDENT.
EFFECT ON RUNOFF FROM THE SURFACE IS GENERALLY VERY SMALL.
r\
EFFECTS OF DRAINABLE POROSITY
DRAINABLE POROSITY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN POROSITY
AND FIELD CAPACITY AND IS A MEASURE OF THE FREE DRAINING
GRAVITY WATER REQUIRED TO BUILD A PRESSURE HEAD. AN
INCREASE IN DRAINABLE POROSITY DECREASES UNSATURATED
HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AND PRESSURE HEAD FOR A GIVEN
CLIMATE, DESIGN AND MATERIAL AND, CONSEQUENTLY, RESULTS
IN AN INCREASE INEVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND A DECREASE IN
LATERAL DRAINAGE. THE EFFECTS ON RUNOFF AND PERCOLATION
THROUGH THE COVER ARE DESIGN DEPENDENT. SIZE OF EFFECTS
IS CLIMATE AND DESIGN DEPENDENT.
\\
EFFECTS OF PLANT AVAILABLE CAPACIT
PLANT AVAILABLE WATER CAPACITY IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
FIELD CAPACITY AND WILTING POINT AND IS A MEASURE OF THE
MAXIMUM CAPILLARY WATER STORAGE AVAILABLE FOR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION. AN INCREASE IN PLANT AVAILABLE WATER
CAPACITY FOR A GIVEN MATERIAL INCREASES AVAILABLE WATER
STORAGE AND DECREASES PRESSURE HEAD FOR A GIVEN CLIMATE
AND DESIGN. THIS YIELDS AN INCREASE IN EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
AND A DECREASE IN LATERAL DRAINAGE AND PERCOLATION
THROUGH THE COVER. THE EFFECT ON RUNOFF IS DESIGN
DEPENDENT. SIZE OF EFFECTS IS CLIMATE AND DESIGN
DEPENDENT.
-182-
-------
EFFECT OF SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
ON LATERAL DRAINAGE AND PERCOLATION
SO In./yr
INFLOW
KD = 1 cm/s
KD = 0.1 cm/s
KD = 0.01 cm/s
KD = 0.001 cm/a
a In./yr SS INFLOW
KD = 1 cm/s
KD = 0.1 cm/s
KD = 0.01 cm/s
KD = 0.001 cm/a
1
10-'
KP, cm/s
0
10
20 q
30 |
40 ฃ
50 g
60 ง
70 g
80 g
Q.
90
100
LINER HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
O SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF LINER IS
THE PRIMARY CONTROL OF LEAKAGE THROUGH THE
LINER IN THE ABSENCE OF A FML j
O LEAKAGE THROUGH LINER IS NEARLY PROPORTIONAL
TO THE SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY AT|
VALUES BELOW 1 x 10 -7 cm/sec
O SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF
LAYER HAS LITTLE IMPACT ON VOLUME OF LEAKAGE
THROUGH THE LINER. IMPACT IS GREATER IN
CONJUNCTION WITH POOR LINERS IN COVERS OR
OPEN LANDFILLS
LINER HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY
IN THE ABSENCE OF A FML, SOIL LINERS HAVING
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITIES OF 10 'e
cm/sec OR GREATER ARE LARGELY INEFFECTIVE
I
IN THE ABSENCE OF A LINER, THE NET INFILTRATION
IS GENERALLY LESS THAN 15 INCHES/YEAR IN j
MOST AREAS OF THIS COUNTRY. A LINER LEAKING
AT A CONSTANT RATE OF 10'6cm/sec ALL
YEAR WOULD LEAK 13 INCHES/YEAR
-183-
-------
EFFECT OF RATSO OF DRAINAGE LENGTH TO DRAINAGE LAYER SLOPE |
ON THE AVERAGE SATURATED DEPTH IN DRAINAGE LAYER j
(KD = 10-* cm/s) ABOVE A SOIL LINER (KP = 10-' cm/s)
UNDER A STEADY-STATE INFLOW RATE OF 8 tn.tyr !
DRAINAGE LAYER DESIGN
O SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF
DRAINAGE LAYER HAS LITTLE EFFECT ON
LEAKAGE THROUGH THE LINER IN THE
ABSENCE OF A FML. ITS PRIMARY EFFECT
IS ON DEPTH OF SATURATION IN THE
DRAIN LAYER OR PRESSURE HEAD ON
THE LINER
O SIMILARLY, DRAIN SLOPE AND SPACING
PRIMARILY AFFECT ONLY THE HEAD ON
THE LINER
LINER/DRAIN
SYSTEM
DESIGN
OTHE RATIO OF THE SATURATED HYDRAULIC
CONDUCTIVITY OF THE DRAIN LAYER TO THAT
OF THE LINER SHOULD BE AT LEAST 106 TO
BE EFFECTIVE UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES;
A RATIO OF 10s IS FAIRLY EFFECTIVE FOR
LINER SYSTEM HAVING AN EFFECTIVE
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY OF
tO'8 cm/sec OR LESS
O COMPpSITE LINER SYSTEMS ARE VERY EFFECTIVE
AT LIMITING LEAKAGE THROUGH THE LINER !
INDEPENDENT OF THE DRAIN SYSTEM I
-184-
-------
FLEXIBLE MEMBRANE LINERS
FML LEAKAGE RATES ARE A
FUNCTION OF:
0 NUMBER OF HOLES
0 SIZE AND SHAPE OF HOLES
0 HEAD ON LINER
0 GAP WIDTH/SUBSOIL/INSTALLATION
LINER DESIGNS
DESIGN A
DESIGN E
C
)
w.i/i.
TV...
^3W:,
S.;, *.:..,-
^-v^
W.ป/t
T5~:,
S-/ (..-..,.
1w.
a.v i..-.ซ.
PERCENT OF INFLOW TO PRIMARY LEACHATE COLLECTION LAYER
DISCHARGING FROM LEAKAGE DETECTION LAYER AND
BOTTOM LINER FOR DOUBLE LINER SYSTEMS C AND E
100
80
QP
QD
10-' 10-ป 10-ป 10-ซ 10"> 10"ป 10-1
SYNTHETIC LINER LEAKAGE FRACTION, LF
-185-
-------
PERCENT OF INFLOW TO PRIMARY LEACHATE COLLECTION LAYER
DISCHARGING FROM LEAKAGE DETECTION LAYER
AND BOTTOM LINER FOR DOUBLE LINER SYSTEMS D AND F
DESIGN D
0.01 0.10 1.00
SYNTHETIC LINER LEAKAGE FRACTION, LF
-186-
-------
Bibliography i
Anderson, E 1973. National Weather Service river forecast system-Snow accumulation and ablation
model. Hydrologic Research Laboratory, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Silver
Spnng, MD. \ '
\
Arnold, J.G., J.R. Williams, A.D. Nicks, and N.B. Sarnmons. 1989. SWRRB: A basin scale simulation model
for soil and water resources management. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press.
Bartos, MJ and M.R. Palermo. 1977. Physical and engineering properties of hazardous industrial wastes and
sludges. EPA/60Q/2-77/139. U.S. Army Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Bear, J 1972. Dynamics of fluids in porous media. New York, NY: American Elsevier Publishina
Company, Inc.
Bonaparte, R., J.P. Giroud, and B.A. Gross J1989. Rates of leakage through landfill liners. Proceedings of
Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego, CA.
i
Brakensiek, D.L, WJ. Rawls, and G.R. Stephenson. 1984. Modifying SCS hydrologic soil groups and curve
numbers for rangeland soils. Paper Number PNR-84-203. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, Pacific Northwest Region, Kennewick, WA (September).
Breazeale, E., and W.T. McGeorge. 1949. A new technique for determining wilting percentage of soil. Soil
Sci. 68:371-374.
Brooks, R.H., and AT. Corey. 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous media. Hydrology Papers No 3
Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO (March).
Brutsaert, W. 1967. Some methods of calculating unsaturated permeability. Transactions of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers. 1OJ[3):400-404.
Campbell, G.S. 1974. A simple method for determining unsaturated hydraulic conductivity from moisture
retention data. Soil Sci. 117(6):311-314.
Childs, E.C., and N. Collis-George. 1950. The permeability of porous material. Proceeding of the Roval
Society, Section A, Vol. 201. ! y
i
Chow, V.T., ed. 1964. Handbook of applied hydrology. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Daniel, D.E. 1984. Predicting the hydraulic conductivity of clay liners. J. Geotech. Eng. 110(2).
Darilek, G.T., D.L. Laine, and J.O. Parra. 1999. The electrical leak location method geomembrane liners-
Development and applications. Proceedings of the Geosynthetics 1989 Conference, San Diego,
CA. pp. 456-466. i
Das, B.M., A.J. Tarquin, and A.D. Jones. 1983. Geotechnical properties of a copper slag. Transportation
Research Record 941. Transportation Research Board, National Academy of Sciences.
Dozier, T.S. 1992. Examination and modification of three surface hydrologic processes in the HELP
model. M.S. thesis. Mississippi State 'University, MS.
Elsbury, B.R., D.E. Daniel, G.A. Sraders, and'D.C. Anderson. 1990. Lessons learned from compacted clav
liner. J. Geotech. Eng. 116(11). j y
England, C.B. 1970. Land capability: A hydrologic response unit in agricultural watersheds ARS 41-172
USDA Agricultural Research Service.!
i
Freeze, R.A., and J.A. Cherry. 1979. Ground Water. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Fukuoka, M. 1986. Large-scale permeability tests for geomembrane-subgrade system. Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on| Geotextiles, Vienna, Austria (April). Rotterdam The
Netherlands: Balkema Publishers, i
Fukuoka, M. 1985. Outline of large-scale mod^l test on waterproof membrane. Unpublished report. Japan.
-187-
-------
Geosyntec Consultants. 1993. Long-term performance of high density polyethylene cap at Chem-
Nuclear's proposed Illinois low-level radioactive waste disposal facility original and revision.
Boynton Beach, FL. j
Geotextile Fabrics Report. 1991. 1992 specifiers' guide. 9(9).
Giroud, J.P., A. Khatami, and K. Badu-Tweneboah|. 1989. Evaluation of the rate of leakage through
composite liners. Geotex. Geomem. 8(4):337f340.
I
Giroud, J.P., and R. Bonaparte. 1989. Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes, Part I.
Geomembrane liners. Geotex. Geomem. 8(1)|:27-67.
Giroud, J.P., and R. Bonaparte. 1989. Leakage through liners constructed with geomembranes, Part II.
Composite liners. Geotex. Geomem. 8{2):71-ll 1 1 .
j
Giroud, J.P., and R. Bonaparte. 1985. Waterproofing and drainage: Geomembranes and synthetic drainage
layers. In: Geotextiles and geomembranes: Definitions, properties, and design (selected papers,
revisions, and comments), 2nd ed. St. Paul, MN: Industrial Fabrics Association International.
I
Gupta, S.C., and W.E. Larson. 1979. Estimating soil water retention characteristics from particle size
distribution, organic matter percent, and bulk density. Water Resour. Res. 15(6):1 ,633-1 ,635.
Hillel, D. 1982. Introduction to soil physics. New York,' NY: Academic Press.
Holtz, R.D., and W.D. Kovacs. 1981. An introduction to geotechnical engineering. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, Inc. I
Horton, R.E. 1919. Rainfall interception. Monthly weather review, U.S. Weather Bureau. 47(9):603-623.
IBM. 1974. IBM OS FORTRAN IV (H extended). Compiler programmer's guide. New York, NY: IBM Corp.
Jayawickrama, P.W., K.W. Brown, J.C. Thomas, and R.L. Lytton. 1988. Leakage rates through flaws in
membrane liners. J. Environ. Eng. 1 14(6). '
Jensen, M.E., ed. 1973. Consumptive use of water and irrigation water requirements. New York, NY:
American Society of Civil Engineers. j
i
Knisel, W.G., D.C. Moffitt, and T.A. Dumper. 1985. Representing seasonally frozen soil with the CREAMS
model. Transactions of the American Societyiof Agricultural Engineering. 28:1 ,487-1 ,492.
Knisel, W.J., Jr., ed. 1980. CREAMS: A field scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural
management systems, Vols. 1 , 2, and 3. Conservation Research Report 26. USDA-SEA.
Koerner, R.M. 1986. Designing with geosynthetics. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Lambe, T.W., and R.V. Whitman. 1969. Soil mechanibs. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
{
Lane, K.S., and D.E. Washbum. 1946. Capillary tests by capillarimeter and by soil filled tubes. Proceedings of
the Twenty-Sixth Annual Meeting of the Highway Research Board, Washington, DC. pp. 460-473.
Li, E.A. 1975. A model to define hydrologic response units based on characteristics of the soil-vegetative
complex within a drainage basin. M.S. thesis. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University,
Blacksburg, VA. j
Linsley, R.K., M.A. Kohler, and J.L.H. Paulhus. 198^2. Hydrology for engineers, 3rd ed. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. :
McEnroe, B.M., and P.R. Schroeder. 1988. Leachate collection in landfills: Steady case. J. Environ. Eng.
Div. 11 4(5):1, 052-1 ,062. {
i
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1,985. Climates of the states, Vol. 1. Detroit, Ml: Gale
Research Company. I
-------
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1985. Climates of the states, Vol. 2. Detroit, Ml: Gale
Research Company. j
Oweis, I.S., D.A. Smith, R.B. Ellwood, and! D.S. Greene. 1990. Hydraulic characteristics of municipal
refuse. J. Geotech. Eng. 116(4):539-553.
Penman, H.L. 1963. Vegetation and hydrology. Technical comment no. 53. Harpenden England-
Commonwealth Bureau of Soils. ( '
Perloff, W.H., and W. Baron. 1976. Soil mechanics: Principles and applications. New York NY- John
Wiley and Sons. i
Perrier, E.R. and A.C. Gibson. 1980. Hydrolpgic simulation on solid waste disposal sites. EPA-SW-868
Cincinnati, OH. j
Perry, U.S., and D.I. Schultz. 1977. Disposal and alternate uses of high ash papermill sludge. Proceedings
of the 1977 National Conference on Treatment and Disposal of Industrial Wastewaters and
Residues, Houston, TX. >
Poran, C.J., and F. Ahtchi-Ali. 1989. Properties of solid waste incinerator fly ash. J. Geotech. Eng. 115(8).
Rawls, W.J., and D.L. Brakensiek. 1985. Prediction of soil water properties for hydrologic modeling In-
Jones, B., and T.J. Ward, eds. NeW York, NY: Proceedings of Watershed Management in the
Eighties. American Society of Civil Engineers (April).
{
Rawls, W.J., D.L. Brakensiek, and B. Sojii. 1983. Agricultural management effects on soil water
processes, Part I. Soil water retention and green and ampt infiltration parameters. Transactions of
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 26(6): 1,747-1,757.
Rawls, W.J., and D.L. Brakensiek. 1982. Estimating soil water retention from soil properties J Irr Drain
Div. 108(IR2):166-171. :
i
Rawls, W.J., D.L. Brakensiek, and K.E. Saxtpn. 1982. Estimation of soil water properties. Transactions of
the American Society of Agricultural Engineers. 25(5):1,316-1,320.
Richardson, C.W. 1981. Stochastic simulation of daily precipitation, temperature, and solar radiation
Water Resources Research. 17(1):182-190.
Richardson, C.W., and D.A. Wright. 1984. WGEN: A model for generating daily weather variables. ARS-8
Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
Ritchie, J.T. 1972. A model for predicting evaporation from a row crop with incomplete cover Water
Resour. Res. 8(5): 1,204-1,213.
i
Rushbrook, P.E., G. Baldwin, and C.B. Dent. 1989. A quality-assurance procedure for use at treatment
plants to predict the long-term suitability of cement-based solidified hazardous wastes deposited
in landfill sites. In: Cote, P.L., and T M. Gilliam, eds. Environmental aspects of stabilization and
solidification of hazardous and radioactive wastes, ASTM STP 1033. Philadelphia, PA.
Saxton, K.E., H.P. Johnson, and R.H. Shaw. 1971. Modeling evapotranspiration and soil moisture. No. 71-7636.
Proceedings of American Society of Agribultural Engineers 1971 Winter Meeting, SL Joseph, Ml.
i
Shanholtz, V.O., and J.B. Lillard. 1970. A soH water model for two contrasting tillage practices. Bull. 38.
Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Water Resources Research Center.
Shiozawa, S., and G.S. Campbell. 1991. Ofi the calculation of mean particle diameter and standard
deviation from sand, silt, and clay fractions. Soil Sci. 152(6):427-431.
Shirazi, M.A., and L. Boersma. 1984. A unifying quantitative analysis of soil texture. Soil Sci. Soc Amer J
48(1): 142-147. ; ' '
.\
Shirazi, M.A., L. Boersma, and J.W. Hart! 1988. A unifying quantitative analysis of soil texture:
Improvement of precision and extension of scale. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. J. 52(1 ):181-190.
[
i
1 -189-
-------
Springer, E.P., and L.J. Lane. 1987. Hydrology-Component parameter estimation, in: Wight, J.R., and
J.W. Skiles, eds. Simulation of production and utilization of rangelands (SPUR): Documentation
and user guide. ARS-63. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
Sudar, R. A., K.E. Saxton, and R.G. Spomer. 198ll. A predictive model of water stress in corn and
soybeans. Transactions of American Society pf Agricultural Engineers.
Swain, A. 1979. Field studies of pulverized fuel ash in partially submerged conditions. Proceedings of the
Symposium of the Engineering Behavior of Industrial and Urban Fill, Birmingham, England.
Tchobanoglous, G., H. Theisen, and R. Eliassen: 1977. Solid wastes: Engineering principles and
management issues. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Toth, P.S., H.T. Chan, and C.B. Cragg. 1988. Coal iash as a structural fill, with special reference to the
Ontario experience. Can. Geotech. J. 25. ;
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1972. National engineering handbook, section
4. Hydrology. Washington, DC: U.S. GPO. ;
U.S. Department of Commerce. 1968. Climatic atlas |of the United States. Ashville, NC: National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration. |
i
U.S. EPA. 1994. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model. Documentation for
Version 3. EPA/600/1-94/xxx. Cincinnati, OH]
U.S. EPA. 1989. Technical guidance document: Final covers for hazardous waste landfills and surface
impoundments. EPA/530/SW-89/047. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response,
Washington, DC. !
U.S. EPA. 1988. Guide to technical resources for the design of land disposal facilities. EPA/625/6-88/018.
Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA. 1988. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model, Vol. III. User's guide for
Version 2. Internal working document EL-92-1, Report 1. USAE Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS. '
U.S. EPA. 1988. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model, Vol. IV. Documentation
for Version 2. Internal working document' EL-92-1, Report 2. USAE Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, MS. '
U.S. EPA. 1987. Quantification of leak rates through holes in landfill liners. EPA/600/S2-87/062.
Cincinnati, OH. j
U.S. EPA. 1985. Covers for uncontrolled hazardous waste sites. EPA/540/2-85/002. Hazardous Waste
Engineering Research Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
i
U.S. EPA. 1984. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model, Vol. I. User's guide for
Version 1. EPA/530/SW-84/009. Cincinnati, OH.
I
U.S. EPA. 1984. The hydrologic evaluation of landfill performance (HELP) model, Vol. II. Documentation
for Version I. EPA/530/SW-84/010. Cincinnati, OH.
[
U.S. EPA. 1982. Supporting documentation for the hydrologic simulation model for estimating percolation
at solid waste disposal sites (HSSWDS). Draft report. Cincinnati, OH.
U.S. EPA. 1979. Design and construction of covers for jsolid waste landfills. EPA/600/2-79/165. Cincinnati, OH.
Viessman, W. Jr., J.W. Knapp, G.L. Lewis, and T.E. Harbaugh. 1977. Introduction to hydrology, 2nd ed.
New York, NY: Harper and Row Publishers, i
Williams, R.D., L.R. Ahujam, and J.W. Naney. 1992. Comparison of methods to estimate soil water
characteristics from soil texture, bulk density! and limited data. Soil Sci. 153(3): 172-184.
j-190-
-------
Appendix:
Beta Draft of HELP Model
Version 3
-191-
-------
-------
*******************
*******************
BETA DRAFT:
*******************
FOR TESTING USE ONLY *******************
*******************
*********************************
HYDROLOGIC EVALUATION OF LANDFILL PERFORMANCE
HELP MODEL VERSION 3.00 (17 OCTOBER 1993)
DEVELOPED BY ENVIRONMENTAL LABORATORY
USAE WATERWAYS EXPERIMENT STATION
FOR USEPA RISK REDUCTION ENGINEERING LABORATORY
*******************
*******************
*******************
BETA DRAFT: ! FOR TESTING USE ONLY
*******************
*******************
*******************
IT**
PRECIPITATION DATA FILE:
TEMPERATURE DATA FILE:
SOLAR RADIATION DATA FILE:
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION DATA:
SOIL AND DESIGN DATA FILE:
OUTPUT DATA FILE:
H:\EXEC\RCRASUBD.D4
H:\EXEG\RCRASUBD.D7
H:\EXEG\RCRASUBD.D13
H:\EXEC\RCRASUBD.D11
H:\EXEC\RCRASUBD.D10
H:\EXEC\RCRASUBD.OUT
TIME: 11:45
DATE: 4/13/1994
*****************
TITLE: Example RCRA Subtitle D Landfill
NOTE:
INITIAL MOISTURE CONTENT OF THE LAYERS AND SNOW WATER WERE
COMPUTED AS NEARLY STEADY-STATE VALUES BY THE PROGRAM.
LAYER 1
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 7
THICKNESS
POROSITY I
FIELD CAPACITY I
WILTING POINT j
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND.
NOTE:
30.00 INCHES
0.4730 VOL/VOL
0.2220 VOL/VOL
0.1040 VOL/VOL
0.2220 VOL/VOL
0.520000001000E-03 CM/SEC
SATURATED HYDRAULIC CONDUCTIVITY VALUE WAS ADJUSTED
FOR ROOT CHANNELS; IN THE EVAPORATIVE ZONE.
-193-
-------
LAYER
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 1
; = 12.00 INCHES
! = 0.4170 VOL/VOL
0.0450 VOL/VOL
0.0200 VOL/VOL
0.0450 VOL/VOL
THICKNESS
POROSITY i
FIELD CAPACITY , =
WILTING POINT i
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT =
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND, = 0
SLOPE ; =
DRAINAGE LENGTH '
.999999978000E-02 CM/SEC
5.00 PERCENT
200.0 FEET
LAYER 3
TYPE 3 - BARRIER SOIL LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 16
THICKNESS I = 36.00 INCHES
POROSITY I = 0.4300 VOL/VOL
FIELD CAPACITY i = 0.3660 VOL/VOL
WILTING POINT ; = 0.2800 VOL/VOL
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT = 0.4300 VOL/VOL
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND. = 0.100000001000E-06 CM/SEC
LAYER 4
TYPE 1 - VERTICAL PERCOLATION LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 18
THICKNESS
POROSITY
FIELD CAPACITY
WILTING POINT
I
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT =
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND, = 0.100000005000E-02 CM/SEC
300.00 INCHES
0.6700 VOL/VOL
0.2240 VOL/VOL
0.0840 VOL/VOL
0.2240 VOL/VOL
LAYER 5
TYPE 2 - LATERAL DRAINAGE LAYER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 3
j = 12.00 INCHES
1 = 0.4570 VOL/VOL
0.0830 VOL/VOL
0.0330 VOL/VOL
0.0830 VOL/VOL
THICKNESS j
POROSITY i =
FIELD CAPACITY j
WILTING POINT i
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT =
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. COND^ = 0
SLOPE j =
DRAINAGE LENGTH
.310000009000E-02 CM/SEC
3.00 PERCENT
80.0 FEET
'. -194-
-------
; LAYER
TYPE 3 - CARRIER SOIL LINER
MATERIAL TEXTURE NUMBER 17
36.00 INCHES
0.4000 VOL/VOL
0.3560 VOL/VOL
0.2900 VOL/VOL
0.4000 VOL/VOL
THICKNESS =
POROSITY i =
FIELD CAPACITY j =
WILTING POINT j
INITIAL SOIL WATER CONTENT =
EFFECTIVE SAT. HYD. CONb.
0.999999994000E-08 CM/SEC
GENERAL DESIGN AND EVAPORATIVE ZONE DATA
NOTE: SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER WAS COMPUTED FROM DEFAULT
SOIL DATA BASE USING SOIL TEXTURE # 7 WITH A
POOR STAND OF GRASS, A SURFACE SLOPE OF 3.%
AND A SLOPE LENGTH OF 400. FEET.
SCS RUNOFF CURVE NUMBER ! = 82.80
FRACTION OF AREA ALLOWING RUNOFF = 100.0
AREA PROJECTED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE = 15.000
EVAPORATIVE ZONE DEPTH ! = 20.0
INITIAL WATER IN EVAPORATIV[E ZONE - 6.088
UPPER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE iSTORAGE = 9.460
LOWER LIMIT OF EVAPORATIVE ISTORAGE = 2.080
INITIAL SNOW WATER ' = 0.000
INITIAL WATER IN LAYER MATERIALS = 105.276
TOTAL INITIAL WATER ! = 105.276
TOTAL SUBSURFACE INFLOW ! = 0.00
PERCENT
ACRES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES
INCHES/YEAR
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION AND WEATHER DATA
NOTE: EVAPOTRANSPIRATION iDATA WAS OBTAINED FROM
BUFFALO NEW YORK
MAXIMUM LEAF AREA INDEX = 2.00
START OF GROWING SEASON (JULIAN DATE) = 126
END OF GROWING SEASON [(JULIAN DATE) = 285
AVERAGE ANNUAL WIND SPEED =12.10 MPH
AVERAGE 1ST QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 76.00 %
AVERAGE 2ND QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 68.00 %
AVERAGE 3RD QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 72.00 %
AVERAGE 4TH QUARTER RELATIVE HUMIDITY = 76.00 %
-195-
-------
NOTE:
JAN/JUL
3.02
2.96
PRECIPITATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR BUFFALO NEW YORK
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY PRECIPITATION (INCHES)
I
FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV
2.40
4.16
2.97 !
3.37
3.06
2.93
2.89
3.62
JUN/DEC
2.72
3.42
NOTE: TEMPERATURE DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR ; BUFFALO NEW YORK
NORMAL MEAN MONTHLY TEMPERATURE (DEGREES FAHRENHEIT)
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
23.50
70.70
24.50
68.90
33.00 ,
62.10 ;
45.40
51.50
56.10
40.30
66.00
28.80
NOTE: SOLAR RADIATION DATA WAS SYNTHETICALLY GENERATED USING
COEFFICIENTS FOR ! BUFFALO NEW YORK
STATION LATITUDE
42.93 DEGREES
-196-
-------
MONTHLY TOTALS (IN INCHES) FOR YEAR
JAN/JUL FEB/AUG MAR/SEP APR/OCT MAY/NOV JUN/DEC
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION THROUGH
LAYER 3
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 5
PERCOLATION THROUGH
LAYER 6
2 . 44
2.70
1.379
0.002
I
0 . 711
3.5J36
2.02
3.84
0.306
0.001
0.912
3.596
4.28
2.92
1.712
0.000
1.522
2.172
2.94
5.27
0.000
0.075
3.445
2.185
3.27
6.60
0.000
0.077
3.433
1.553
2.62
3.68
0.000
0.304
3.427
0.804
2.0854 1.4054 1.2247 1.0271 0.8742 0.5803
0.1816 0.0280 0.0000 0.0052 0.7852 2.0275
0.1344 0.1139 0.1207 0.1143 0.1147 0.1059
0.1067 0.0948 0.0418 0.0345 0.1104 0.1335
i
0.0047 0.0043 0.0048 0.0047 0.0049 0.0048
0.0050 0.0051 0.0050 0.0053 0.0053 0.0056
O.OJ106 0.0095 0.0106 0.0102 0.0106 0.0102
0.0106 0.0106 0.0102 0.0106 0.0102 0.0106
MONTHLY SUMMARIES FOR
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON
LAYER 3
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY
HEAD ON LAYER 3
AVERAGE DAILY HEAD ON
LAYER 6
STD. DEVIATION OF DAILY
HEAD ON LAYER 6
9.b92
0.414
i
0.697
0.163
O.JD23
0.025
i
0.^)00
o.poo
DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
7.039
0.064
0.778
0.057
0.023
0.025
0.000
0.000
5.221
0.000
0.415
0.000
0.023
0.026
0.000
0.000
4.314
0.012
0.120
0.041
0.024
0.026
0.000
0.000
3.152
2.957
0.515
2.246
0.024
0.027
0.000
0.000
1.368
9.586
0.436
0.994
0.024
0.027
0.000
0.000
1-197-
-------
ANNUAL TOTALS FOR YEAR 1
i INCHES CU. FEET
PRECIPITATION i 42.58 2318480.500
RUNOFF ,. 3.854 209857.500
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION 27.296 1486252.370
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 2 10.2247 556733.250
PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3 1.225560 66731.734
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3 ! 3.6682
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5 0.0594 3235.331
PERC. /LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6 0.124241 6764.911
AVG. HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6 ! 0.0247
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE 1.022 55637.687
SOIL WATER AT START OF YEAR 112.576 6129736.000
SOIL WATER AT END OF YEAR 113.597 6185373.500
SNOW WATER AT START OF YEAR 0.000 0.000
SNOW WATER AT END OF YEAR 0.000 0.000
ANNUAL WATER BUDGET BALANCE 0.0000 -0.629
I
******************************************** ************************
i
i
1
j
-1^8-
***********
PERCENT
100.00
9.05
64.10
24.01
2.88
0.14
0.29
2.40
0.00
0.00
0.00
***********
-------
HEAD #1: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 3
DRAIN #1: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 2 (
LEAK #1: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH L
HEAD #2: AVERAGE HEAD ON TOP OF LAYER 6
DRAIN #2: LATERAL DRAINAGE FROM LAYER 5 (
LEAK #2: PERCOLATION OR LEAKAGE THROUGH L
**********************************************
DAILY OUTP
S
DAY A 0 RAIN
I I
R L IN.
1 * * 0.00
2 * 0.00
3 * * 0.00
4 * 0.00
5 * * 0.00
6 * 0.06
7 * * 0.03
8 * * 0.06
9 * * 0.01
10 * * 0.00
11 * * 0.32
12 * * 0.81
13 * * 0.00
14 * * 0.00
15 * * 0.20
16 * * 0.19
17 * * 0.09
18 * * 0.24
19 * 0.00
20 0.00
21 0.00
22 0.00
23 0.04
24 0.00
25 0.00
26 * * 0.01
27 0.16
28 * * 0.03
29 * 0.00
30 0.04
31 0.15
32 * * 0.07
33 * * 0.11
34 * * 0.15
35 * * 0.06
36 * * 0.00
RUNOFF
IN.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
1.379
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
ET
IN.
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.030
0.024
0.024
0.026
0.021
0.024
0.019
0.020
0.018
0.014
0.017
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.045
0.051
0.039
0.049
0.050
0.043
0.010
0.038
0.030
0.037
0.043
0.039
0.025
0.024
0.026
0.019
0.020
E. ZONE
WATER
IN. /IN.
0.3004
0.2964
0.2927
0.2892
0.2860
0.2840
0.2813
0.2787
0.2764
0.2742
0.2722
0.2703
0.2686
0.2670
0.2655
0.2640
0.2627
0.2614
0.2786
0.2756
0.2720
0.2690
0.2676
0.2642
0.2612
0.2603
0.2655
0.2648
0.2622
0.2613
0.2660
0.2655
0.2648
0.2641
0.2635
0.2628
HEAD
#1
IN.
10.7
10.7
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.5
10.5
10.5
10.4
10.4
10.3
10.2
10.1
10.1
9.98
9.89
9.80
9.70
9.60
9.50
9.40
9.29
9.19
9.08
8.97
8.86
8.75
8.64
8.53
8.42
8.31
8.20
8.09
7.97
RECIRCULATION AND COLLE
AYER 3
RECIRCULATION AND COLLE
AYER 6
Ir 4r 4r 4t 4r W4r 4r 4c Hr 4r 4r 4r 4r 4rW4lr 4r 4r Ik W4r 1
i
JT FJOR YEAR 1
I
i DRAIN
: #1
; IN.
;.722E-01
J.721E-01
I.719E-01
J.719E-01
I-718E-01
I-716E-01
I.715E-01
J.713E-01
I.711E-01
L708E-01
J.705E-01
.701E-01
J.697E-01
J.693E-01
J.688E-01
J.683E-01
J.678E-01
J.673E-01
.667E-01
P661E-01
J.655E-01
L649E-01
r641E-01
.635E-01
..629E-01
.622E-01
.616E-01
I609E-01
I.603E-01
.596E-01
[590E-01
I.583E-01
L576E-01
1570E-01
;563E-01
1557E-01
1
f
-199-
1
LEAK
#1
IN.
.441E-02
-441E-02
.441E-02
.441E-02
.440E-02
.440E-02
.440E-02
.440E-02
.439E-02
.439E-02
.439E-02
.438E-02
.437E-02
.437E-02
.436E-02
.435E-02
.434E-02
.434E-02
.433E-02
.432E-02
-431E-02
.430E-02
.429E-02
.428E-02
.427E-02
.426E-02
-425E-02
.424E-02
.423E-02
.422E-02
.421E-02
.420E-02
.419E-02
.418E-02
.417E-02
.416E-02
CTION)
CTION)
*******************************
HEAD
#2
IN.
.229E-01
.229E-01
.229E-01
.229E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.230E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
.231E-01
DRAIN
#2
IN.
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
-151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.151E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
.152E-03
LEAK
#2
IN.
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
-340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
-340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
-340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
-340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
-------
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
340
341 *
342
343
344 *
345 *
346 *
347 *
348 *
349 *
350
351
352 *
353 * *
354 * *
355 * *
356 * *
357 *
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
1.18
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.92
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.00
0.05
0.19
0.18
0.14
0.00
0.11
0.99
0.16
0.00
0.00
0.18
0.01
0.12
0.15
0.00
0.01
0.13
0.00
0.42
0.17
0.00
0.00
0.21
0.002
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000'
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.129
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.175
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.133
0.278
0.249
0.235
0.214
0.214
0.167
0.211
0.198
0.139
0.111
0.121
0.057
0.015
0.030
0.031
0.041
0.027
0.020
0.018
0.014
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.033
0.027
0.023
0.015
0.016
0.000
0.000
0.045
0.045
0.038
0.042
0.050
0.041
0.043
0.038
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
1666
1541
1416
1298
1191
1084
1451
1355
1256
1186
1130
1070
1041
0.3023
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
.0.
0.
0.
0.
2972
2923
2895
2876
2858
2842
2828
2816
2804
3440
3377
3187
3078
3000
2941
0.2893
0.
2966
0.2917
0.2929
0.2885
0.3046
0.3087
0.3046
0.2996
0.3043
.527
.506
.485
.465
.446
.427
.409
.391
.374
.358
.342
.326
.311
8.94
9.08
9.18
9.26
9.31
9.34
9.35
9.35
9.34
9.32
9.28
9.25
9.29
9.56
9.92
10.2
10.5
10.6
10.7
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.8
10.7
10.7
i
1746E-02
L715E-02
J.686E-02
658E-02
I.630E-02
t603E-02
-578E-02
r
L553E-02
I529E-02
.506E-02
.483E-02
I-461E-02
|.440E-02
i
i
I.614E-01
.622E-01
;.629E-01
.633E-01
I-636E-01
.638E-01
.639E-01
'.639E-01
I-638E-01
I.636E-01
i.635E-01
'.632E-01
|.635E-01
;.652E-01
|.674E-01
[.693E-01
I.707E-01
'.717E-01
;.724E-01
L728E-01
J.730E-01
I.730E-01
I-729E-01
I.727E-01
'.725E-01
!.722E-01
.345E-02
.345E-02
.345E-02
.345E-02
.344E-02
.344E-02
.344E-02
.344E-02
.344E-02
.344E-02
.343E-02
.343E-02
.343E-02
.425E-02
.426E-02
.427E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
-428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.428E-02
.430E-02
.434E-02
.437E-02
.439E-02
.440E-02
.441E-02
.442E-02
.442E-02
.442E-02
.442E-02
.442E-02
.442E-02
.441E-02
.245E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.246E-01
.247E-01
.247E-01
.247E-01
.247E-01
.270E-01
.270E-01
.271E-01
.271E-01
.271E-01
.271E-01
.271E-01
.272E-01
.272E-01
.272E-01
.272E-01
.272E-01
.273E-01
.273E-01
.273E-01
.273E-01
.273E-01
.273E-01
.274E-01
.274E-01
.274E-01
.274E-01
.274E-01
.275E-01
.275E-01
.275E-01
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.162E-03
.163E-03
.163E-03
.178E-03
.178E-03
.178E-03
.178E-03
.178E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.179E-03
.180E-03
-180E-03
.180E-03
.180E-03
.180E-03
.180E-03
.180E-03
.180E-03
.181E-03
.181E-03
.181E-03
.181E-03
.181E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
.340E-03
i
I
i
i
i
i
\
-200-
-------
AVERAGE MONTHLY VALUES IN INCHES
PRECIPITATION
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
RUNOFF
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
JAN/JUL
3.03
2.84
1.02
1.53
1.257
0.022
0.931
0.054
0.571
3.328
0.087
1.490
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE
TOTALS
STD . DEVIATIONS
0.9377
0.1131
0.5773
0.1409
1
I FEB/AUG
2.33
' 3.88
j
; o.9i
1.92
; 1.268
; 0.079
! 0.912
i 0.199
0.566
3.035
i
0.146
1.117
i
LAYER 2
0.8174
i 0.0196
1 0.3322
0.0456
FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30
MAR/ SEP
2.93
3.12
0.99
1.39
1.119
0.043
1.056
0.099
1.612
2.893
0.350
0.937
0.8490
0.0150
0.2497
0.0551
APR/OCT
2.88
2.98
1.18
1.30
0.018
0.030
0.061
0.077
3.255
1.815
0.540
0.359
0.7896
0.0423
0.2157
0.1023
MAY/NOV
2.65
3.74
1.08
1.48
0.007
0.059
0.026
0.127
2.954
1.119
0.917
0.208
0.6442
0.1677
0.3021
0.2540
JUN/DEC
2.63
3.20
1.05
0.78
0.014
0.524
0.044
0.677
3.591
0.683
1.030
0.147
0.3214
0.6524
0.2304
0.5967
THROUGH LAYER 3
0.1164
0.1009
0.0106
0.0104
j 0.1041
1 0.0715
0.0054
0.0215
j
1
i
i
i
0.1139
0.0430
0.0042
0.0274
0.1099
0.0310
0.0036
0.0411
0.1111
0.0532
0.0040
0.0457
0.1044
0.1013
0.0023
0.0299
i-201-
-------
i
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED PROM LAYER 5
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE
TOTALS
STD. DEVIATIONS
i
0.0458 i 0.0412 0.0457 0.0441 0.0458
0.0463 0.0466 0.0453 0.0471 0.0458
0.0232 ! 0.0208 0.0228 0.0218 0.0225
0.0225 ' 0.0224 0.0217 0.0224 0.0216
THROUGH LAYER 6
0.0107 i 0.0096 0.0106 0.0103 0.0106
0.0106 | 0.0106 0.0103 0.0106 0.0103
0.0002 , 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0446
0.0475
0.0218
0.0223
0.0103
0.0106
0.0000
0.0000
AVERAGES OF MONTHLY AVERAGED DAILY HEADS (INCHES)
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD
AVERAGES
STD. DEVIATIONS
DAILY AVERAGE HEAD
AVERAGES
, STD. DEVIATIONS
*********************
1
ACROSS LAYER 3
3.7345 | 3.3339 2.8844 2.7848 1.9322
0.2656 ! 0.0448 0.0353 0.1006 0.5533
2.8687 | 2.0248 1.4465 1.2547 1.3531
0.3558 ; 0.1041 0.1299 0.2408 0.9311
ACROSS LAYER J6
0.2270 | 0.2279 0.2288 0.2303 0.2319
0.2349 0.2364 0.2378 0.2392 0.2405
i
1
0.1202 0.1201 0.1199 0.1204 0.1212
0.1224 i 0.1228 0.1232 0.1235 0.1237
**************i***********************************V
I
i
i
i
j
i
i
1
i
]
i
-202-
0.8395
2.5916
0.8017
2.7577
0.2335
0.2417
0.1218
0.1238
t********
-------
*****************************
AVERAGE ANNUAL TOTALS &
PRECIPITATION
RUNOFF
EVAPOTRANSPIRATION
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 2
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 3
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 3
LATERAL DRAINAGE COLLECTED
FROM LAYER 5
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH
FROM LAYER 6
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS TOP
OF LAYER 6
CHANGE IN WATER STORAGE
*****************************
(STD. JDEVIATIONS) FOR YEARS 1 THROUGH 30
i
INCHES CU. FEET PERCENT
36.21 ( 4.317) 1971725.6 100.00
4.442 ( 1.8692) 241864.53 12.267
25.422 ( 2.9649) 1384221.25 70.204
i
5.3J6944 { 1.86455) 292365.750 14.82791
1.J06066 ( 0.14208) 57752.828 2.92905
1
1.J592 ( 0.759)
0.54577 ( 0.26563) 29717.367 1.50718
f
1
O.,12504 ( 0.00045) 6808.595 0.34531
0.:234 ( 0.122)
0.308 (126.6727) 16747.78 0.849
i
f
I
j
1
i
j
1
i
i -203-
-------
!
1
1
**************************** ****4*********
PEAK DAILY VALUES FOR YEARS
i
I
PRECIPITATION !
RUNOFF !
i
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER i 2
l
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 3
i
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 3
DRAINAGE COLLECTED FROM LAYER 5
PERCOLATION/LEAKAGE THROUGH LAYER 6
AVERAGE HEAD ACROSS LAYER 6 j
SNOW WATER !
MAXIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/ VOL)
MINIMUM VEG. SOIL WATER (VOL/VOL)
I
******************************************
i
j
i
i
i
t
i
i
i
i
i
i
j
1 THROUGH 30
(INCHES) (CU. FT.)
2.55 138847.500
2.977 162121.5000
0.07304 3976.77051
0.004424 240.90057
10.824
0.00235 128.16579
0.000345 18.77751
0.498
4.51 245414.4060
0.3729
0.1040
******************************
-204-
-------
**********
FINAL WATER STORAGE AT END OF YEAR 30
LAYER
1
2
3
4
5
6
SNOW WATER
(INCHES)
,9.1756
i
i 1.8613
15.4800
79.5243
!l.!823
i
l'4.4000
O.OOO
(VOL/VOL)
0.3059
0.1551
0.4300
0.2651
0.0985
0 . 4000
tr U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1984 550-001 /80388
-205-
-------