Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Glawe,
18.01.2002
Leachate collection and mounding
WLG Water lost due to formation of gas WWV Water lost as water
vapor with landfill gas
WE Water lost due to surface
WL Water leaving from bottom
evaporation
(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)
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 1tan
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 9 109
m
s s
2. Calculate maximum height of leachate, i.e. design thickness of the LCS:
h1max 0.5l
1 4 1tan 0.5 20m 1 4 1.6 10.03 0.52m
1
2
12
Phreatic surface in
SLCS
Wetted zone
with parabolic
shape
Of much higher interest for the performance of a LCS is the above group
(b):
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).