AIT / SCE, Dr. U.

Glawe,
18.01.2002
 Leachate collection and mounding

Contamination through barrier systems depend primarily on advection and

diffusion. Advective velocity depends on the gradient, i.e. directly on the
height of leachate on the liner system.
The hydraulic gradients in a landfill depend on the engineering of the
landfill. In other words, the designer can directly influence the hydraulics of
the system, e.g. with the introduction of an under-drain LCS.
The LCS serves for several purposes:
1. Lowering height of leachate mounding, leachate seeps can be minimized.
2. Leachate pressure head on liner gets reduced, hence gradient through liner
gets reduced, hence flow through liner gets reduced.
3. Removing contaminants from the landfill reduces the available
contaminants for transport.
Note: The stated purposes are actually all headed towards “minimizing contamination” and not
towards engineering considerations.
If the height of leachate on the liner is known it is then possible to estimate
average gradient and flow through the barrier.
 Water balance of a landfill
Following Tchobanoglous et al. (1993), the water balance of a landfill
depends on the following terms:

WSW Water (moisture, m) of incoming WCM Water (m) in cover material

solid waste

WTS Water (m) of incoming treatment WR Water from rainfall, infiltration

plant sludge

WLG Water lost due to formation of gas
WE Water lost due to surface
evaporation
WWV Water lost as water
vapor with landfill gas
WL Water leaving from bottom
(leachate, infiltration into barrier)

The change of amount of water stored in a landfill SSW can be put into
equation form such as:
SSW = WSW + WTS + WCM + WR - WLG - WWV - WE - WL
 Leachate mounding
Case 1: Consider the case of a flat liner system with low conductivity
compared to the waste: Steady-state
q0 infiltration collected
by drains
h hmax Drain

Barrier

x
l
Following Harr (1962) the leachate height h can be calculated as:
1
q l
l  x x
1
h 2 2 where   and for x
kw 2 1
maximum height of leachate can be calculated: hmax  0.5l 2 h  0.785hmax
For the calculation use q, consider q = q0 + qi (conservative)

Infiltrated portion into the barrier qi

 Leachate mounding
Case 2: Consider the case of a liner system with sloping geometry and a
low conductivity compared to the waste:

q0
hmax

 Drain
x
Barrier

l
The maximum height of of mounding above the barriers is given as:

  q
 
1
hmax  0.5l    s 2 2  s  where  and s  tan 
  kw
 Leachate mounding
Case 3: Practical questionable case. For solution by trial and error see
Rowe et al. 1995:51-52

q0 Apex

 Drain

h

x
Barrier

All above cases assume that the barrier system has a very low hydraulic
conductivity compared to the conductivity of the waste.
If this is not the case, the equations are not valid and it becomes necessary
to estimate the entire flow regime using numerical techniques.
Design considerations, calculations, leachate collection
 
  q
1
hmax  0.5l    s  s   
2 2

  kw
There is sufficient knowledge on quantities of leachate production available
to estimate q. One must not expect that q is varying in orders of magnitude.
However, the hydraulic conductivity of the waste must be also estimated
and there is a limited number of field measurements available. In practice it
is considered to be in the order of 10-6 m/s.
Due to the nature of waste (heterogeneous, anisotropic) conductivity is
expected to vary. Design must consider this uncertainty.
Example:
Consider the case with = 0, l =25, kw = 10-6 m/s and q =0.20 m/a.
This lead to a mounding of leachate of 1.00 m. Doubling the leachate
production in the landfill, which is conservative, results in a leachate
mounding of 1.40 m, I.e. an increase of 40%.
For the same basic case, but taking the hydraulic conductivity as 10-7 m/s,
which is in a realistic order, leads to a maximum height of leachate of
3.15m, I.e. an increase of more than 200%.
Design considerations, calculations, leachate collection
It is evident, that substantial mounds of leachate can develop. To reduce
these mounds and hence head on liner,
spacing of pipes can be decreased or
increasing the slopes between drains
In our case for kw = 10-6 m/s spacing of 7.5 m is required to achieve a
reasonable, nominal leachate height of 0.3 m.
To allow a hydraulic conductivity of kw = 10-7 m/s a spacing of less than 2.4
m is required.
Using the same example, but increasing the slope between the drains,
requires slopes of 0.12 for kw = 10-6 m/s, and 1.27 (52 degrees) for kw = 10-7
m/s. These results clearly indicate that both options are not realistic.
A granular (sand) blanket is introduced, which significantly increases the
hydraulic conductivity above the barrier:
Waste
kb > 10-5 m/s pipes
hb = 0.3 m
Liner

A granular blanket with k = 5 x 10-5 m/s would allow a spacing l = 53m the
pipes of without sloping the bottom of the landfill.
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
Recall: Consider the case of a liner system with sloping geometry and a low
conductivity compared to the waste:

q0
hmax

 Drain
x
Barrier

l
The maximum height of of mounding above the barriers is given as:

  q
 
1
hmax  0.5l    s 2 2  s  where  and s  tan 
  kw
This is valid for very small slope angles and for  < 0.01.
q = infiltration rate collected by drains.
kw = conductivity of waste (or filter material)
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
Giroud, J.P. (1996): Granular filters and textile filters.- In Lafleur,J. & Rollin. A.L. (Eds) Proc.
Geofilters ’96, May, Montreal, pp. 565-680.
Giroud, J.P. & Houlihan, M.F.(1995): Design of leachate collection layers.- Proc. Int. Landfill
Symp., S. Margherita di Pula, Cagliari, Italy, Vol. 2, pp. 613-640.
PRIMARY LEACHATE COLLECTION SYSTEM DESIGN
The amount of liquid in a LCS at a certain time can be expressed by the
thickness of liquid on the liner or head on liner.
The thickness h is used because it can already be compared to the
(required) thickness of the LCS, since we assume kw = kLCS. At a certain
distance xm the maximum height of leachate h1max occurs.
The value of xm depends on a
h1max parameter , which is defined as:
q
 = angle of 
slope k LCS 1 tan 2 
xm xm/0.5l < 0.2, i.e. the maximum
0.5l head on liner occurs close to the
drain (for <0.15, which is
frequent)
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
A good approximation of h1max for steady-state flow conditions is given by:

h1 max  0.5lj
tan 2
  4q / k LCS 1  2  tan 
1

 0.5lj

1

1  4  2  1 tan 
2 cos  2 cos 

 
j is a dimensionless factor which is defined as:
j  1  0.12 exp  log 0.6 
0.625 2

Values of j range between 0.88 and 1.0, i.e. for practical application it is
often neglected, and h1max can be calculated as

h1 max  0.5l
1  4   1tan 
1
2

2 cos  q
For small values of  the above equation tends to: h1max  0.5l
k LCS 1 sin 

The actual design of the primary LCS is based on the assumption that the h
1max  hLCS 1
maximum leachate thickness on liner is less than the LCS thickness, hence:
If  is small (e.g. < 0.15), h1max can be calculated using the above equation:
q0.5l Therefore, if  is small the design consists of checking
 k LCS 1hLCS 1   LCS 1
sin  q0.5l/sin is less than the hydraulic transmissivity LCS1.
For design purposes a safety factor can be introduced.
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
Liquid migration through the collecting system depends on the head on liner.
For calculation purposes, based on numerical values presented by Giroud &
Houlihan (1995) the average head on liner can be estimated as follows:
h1avg = 0.6 h1max for  > 0.5 q
h1avg = 0.7 h1max for 0.15 <   0.5  
k LCS 1 tan 2 
h1avg = 0.8 h1max for 0.01 <   0.15
h1avg = 0.9 h1max for   0.01, for this case the average head on liner can also
be calculated as: h  q0.5l 0.25ql

2k LCS 1 tan  k LCS 1 tan 
1avg

Example: Determine the head on liner and the design geometry (= thickness in
this case) for a leachate collection system with the following characteristics:
q = 0.45 m/a, l = 20 m, sloping between drains 3%, hydraulic conductivity of
the drainage blanket kLCS1 = 10-5 m/s.
1. Calculate : m m
0.45 365  24  3600 sec . 1.43 10 8
q a s  1.6
  
k LCS 1 tan 2  m
10 5  0.032 9 109
m
s s
2. Calculate maximum height of leachate, i.e. design thickness of the LCS:

h1max  0.5l
1  4   1tan   0.5  20m 1  4 1.6  10.03  0.52m
1
2
12

2 cos  2 cosarctan 0.03

 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
3. Estimate the average head on liner
for  > 0.5 h1avg = 0.6 h1max = 0.6 x 0.52 m  0.3 m
4. Draw conclusions: The calculated maximum head on liner is approximately
0.5 m, which would require a granular blanket of 0.5 m without considering a
factor of safety.
5. Provide recommendations: Increase permeability by a factor of 5, which
leads to m m
0.45 365  24  3600 sec . 1.43 10 8
q a s  0.32
  
k LCS 1 tan 
2
m
5 10 5  0.032 5  9 10 9
m
s s
h1max  0.5l
1  4   1tan   0.5  20m 1  4  0.32  10.03  0.15m
1
2
12

2 cos  2 cosarctan 0.03

This leads to a reasonable height of required blanket thickness. The average
head on liner decreases since:
0.15 <   0.5 and hence h1avg = 0.7 h1max x 0.15 m = 0.11m
These values require a thickness of blanket of 0.15 m, only. However the
actual choice of the thickness depend also on factors such as the collection
pipe diameter or the possible decrease of the permeability of the blanket due
to clogging, which must be addressed in the selection of filter materials.
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
DESIGN OF THE SECONDARY LEACHATE COLLECTION/DETECTION SYSTEM
The existence of the geomembrane at the base of the PLCS suggests that flow of
liquid into the SLCS will occur essentially through defects,
i.e. through small holes in the geomembrane of the PLCS. Each leak creates a so-
called wetted zone.
Cross section
Liner defect
through SLCS
Slope of leachate
  mound
Maximum thickness h2peak
of leachate in SLCS

Phreatic surface in
SLCS

Wetted zone
with parabolic
shape

Plan view at base of

SLCS
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
The thickness of the liquid layer has a peak value at each
location of the defect. The relation between peak liquid
thickness h2peak, the hydraulic conductivity kLCS2 and the rate
of liquid migration Q into the SLCS is: Q  k h 2
LCS 2 2 peak
Note that the peak thickness h2peak is independent of the
liner slope.
Since there might be more leaks the maximum thickness  Qmax 
12

h2max can be is given as: h2 max   

 k LCS 2 
where Qmax is the largest rate of liquid migration into the
SLCS.
The design thickness hLCS2 of the SLCS requires: h2 max  hLCS 2
12
Considering the above equations leads to:  Qmax 
h2 max   
 k LCS 2 
This equation is based upon the assumption that the leaks are at a distance
where their wetted zones do not overlap.
However, this equation provides a good practical approximation of the required
thickness. In design practical a factor of safety should be allow for Qmax.
 Leachate Collection System Design (add.)
In order to estimate the rate of liquid migration through a SLCS it is necessary
to have information on the average head on liner. This can be estimated
considering two scenarios:
Assuming that the leaks are on top of the slope the worst scenario is
FQ0.5l
h2 avgworst 
k LCS 2 tan 
Assuming that the leaks are randomly distributed of the entire slope leads to:
FQ0.5l
h2 avgrand 
2k LCS 2 tan 
Where F is the frequency of defects per unit area. Q is the rate of liquid
migration through each one of the defects.
Studies by Giroud & Bonaparte (1989) have shown that geomembrane
installation with strict quality regulation leads to a defect frequency of 2 mm
diameter defects of 1-2 per 4000 m2.
Electric leak detection survey revealed 5 or more defects with a diameter of less
than 0.5 mm, for the same area (Laine 1991).
Giroud, J.P. & Bonaparte, R. (1989): Leackage through liners constructed with
geomembranes.- Geotextiles and Geomembranes, 8(1), pp. 27-67.
Laine, D.L. (1991): Analysis of pinhole seam leaks in geomembrane liners using the electric
leak location method: case histories.- Proc. Geosythetics ’91, Atlanta, GA, Industrial Fabrics
Assoc. Int., Roseville, MN, Vol.1, pp. 239-253.
 Principles of clogging of the LCS
Performance of LCS’s can be greatly impaired by clogging. This can be
(a) particulate clogging
(b) biologically and chemical clogging

Particulate clogging can be avoided by

selection of a suitable filter textile between soil and drainage system
development of an appropriate design and construction plan

Of much higher interest for the performance of a LCS is the above group
(b):

MSW leachate contains nutrients that will encourage bacterial growth in

geotextile filters,
granular drainage layers,
around perforations of pipes,
and within pipes .

A major component of clogging of leachate is microbiologically related

 Principles of clogging of the LCS
Current research, e.g. Rittmann et al. (1996) suggest that clogging in LCS’s
is a result of
1. A mobilization of inorganic constituents of waste (e.g. Ca, Fe)
by a process involving fermentative bacteria
together with iron and manganese-reducing bacteria
2. This is followed by a precipitation process involving methanogenic and
sulfate-reducing bacteria.
The clog has 2 components:
(1) A hard component (predominantly CaCO3)
(2) A soft organic component
The rate of clogging is related to:
(1) The leachate chemistry
(2) The flow through the critical component
(3) The void size (and surface area) of granular materials
(4) The temperature

While (1) and (4) can usually not directly be influenced, the likelihood of
clogging can be minimized by:
 Principles of clogging of the LCS
(1) Maximize flow velocity:
Maximizing flow velocity minimizes residence time for leachate in the
collection system and hence reduces sedimentation and chemical
precipitation
 increase the slope of the bottom of the landfill and use materials with
high conductivity
(2) Maximize void size
Maximizing the void size leads to an increase in the hydraulic conductivity.
Since void size is about 20% of the characteristic particle size, it follows
that the choice of larger particles lead to larger voids.
(3) Reduce available surface area
Biofilm-growth is related to to surface area available.
Since SS is inversely proportional to the characteristic particle size, it
follows, that increasing the characteristic particle size reduces clogging.
 Influence of clogging on the design
Standard design requires usually a blanket thickness of 0.3 m. If the
calculated maximum leachate height is less than 0.3 m design
requirements are met. See the example in Rowe et al. (1995).

Moderate clogging occurs if the hydraulic conductivity of the granular layer

is in the order of the conductivity of waste. A mound will built up which
exceeds the thickness of the granular layer.
Assume that the maximum height of leachate exceeds the thickness of the
granular layer by some factor.
A significant amount of leachate will still flow through the layer.
Close to the collection system almost all the flow is lateral in the blanket.
(sketch)

Severe clogging occurs, if the hydraulic conductivity of the clogged blanket

exceeds the conductivity of the waste:
The blanket becomes part of the barrier
Mounding will occur above the granular blanket
The maximum height of mounding can be estimated by adding the blanket
thickness to the calculated mounding height. (sketch)
In this case the hydraulic gradient gets effectively increased.
 Leachate Collection System Design
Note: When the resistance to flow into the drainage pipe is increased, a
leachate mound will develop in the waste between the drains. This mound will
maintain some flow to the pipe, but increase flow out through the underlying
liner.
Hence, extreme caution against designs with geotextiles and materials prone
to clogging is recommended.
Geotextiles wrapped around drains and pipes habe been found to experience
a drop in hydraulic conductivity by two to five orders of magnitude (to values as
low as 4 x 10-8 m/s).
Sands with an initial conductivity of 10-4 to 10-5 m/s clog quickly, do not use
for construction
German investigators recommend crystalline gravel with grain sizes between
16 and 32 mm.
Canadian authorities recommend D85>37 mm, D10 > 19 mm and no more than
1% fines < 0.075 mm, and a uniformity coefficient Cu = D60/D10 < 2
Generally, a minimum thickness of 0.3 m is required increasing at the drainage
pipes to 0.5 m.
A permeable protection layer shall be placed between waste and the drainage
layer.