See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/345734719
Comparing the Testing of Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) with Bentonite
Powder and Granular Cores
Conference Paper · March 2017
DOI: 10.1061/9780784480434.012
CITATION READS
1 155
3 authors, including:
Kent von Maubeuge
NAUE GmbH & Co. KG
66 PUBLICATIONS 347 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Crack minimisation in asphalt View project
UV resistance of geotextiles View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Kent von Maubeuge on 12 May 2021.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 117
Comparing WKHTesting of Geosynthetic Clay Liners (GCLs) with Bentonite
Powder and Granular Cores
K. V. Maubeuge1; A. Müller-Kirchenbauer, Ph.D.2; and C. Schlötzer, Ph.D.3
1
NAUE GmbH & Co. KG, Gewerbestraße 2, 32339 Espelkamp-Fiestel, Germany.
E-mail: [email protected]
2
MKP Müller-Kirchenbauer und Partner Ingenieurgesellschaft, Bismarckstraße 15, 32756
Lemgo, Germany. E-mail: [email protected]
3
Professor, Hochschule Ostwestfalen Lippe, Emilienstr. 45, 32756 Detmold. E-mail: mail@mkp-
detmold.de
Abstract
Geosynthetic clay liners (also called GCLs or geosynthetic clay barriers - GBR-C according to
ASTM, resp. ISO terminology) can be a replacement element for the mineral sealing layer in
many sealing applications, such as landfill capping systems. Due to the thin thickness and the
high sensitivity of bentonite to changes in the water content, GCLs are a sensitive structural geo-
engineering element. To investigate the long-term sealing behavior of GCLs, six lysimeters were
built in Lemfoerde, Germany, and were equipped with different cover systems in order to obtain
further knowledge of the GCLs performance. GCLs with granular and powder bentonite filling
have been investigated since 1998 and were rebuilt in the year 2010. After the first 10 years of
performance, the GCL with the granular core showed an increase of the permeation through the
GCL. This paper will show the results of the field study and the differences in sealing behavior
of powder and granular filled GCLs.
INTRODUCTION
Actual developments in landfill engineering show that geosynthetic materials replace more and
more conventional components of standard (traditional) mineral liner systems e.g. mineral
drainage layers or compacted clay liners by. Therefore, the alternative geosynthetic product must
feature at least the same degree of functionality and efficiency as the mineral components in
standard systems and in addition, it has to achieve advantages according to economy and
workmanship.
Tests to measure the permeation rates through GCLs under boundary conditions in situ
comparable to landfill covers are e.g. described by Henken-Mellies et al. (2007), Wolsfeld
(2005) and Melchior (2006). Most of these and similar field tests have been performed to
demonstrate the sealing capacity of GCLs and were not especially designed to investigate the
effects of drying and rehydration cycles caused by seasonal humidity changes or to compare
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 118
different filling materials and none of these field investigation-campaigns had the aim of
comparing granular and powder-fillings of GCLs.
The water suction capacity of a cover soil layer built according to German state-of-the-
art-engineering and the evapotranspiration of the vegetation in the growing season lead to more
or less permanent periods in which no drainage over the GCLs takes place, which means, hardly
any water is permeating through the cover soil layer into the drainage layer. Further evaporation
generates a reduction in water content and suction effects in the pores of the bentonite that could
lead to shrinkage cracks. Under these distinct changes of temperature and water content, GCLs
naturally show an instationary permeation behavior.
To investigate the long-term sealing behavior of GCLs, six lysimeters were built in
Lemfoerde, Germany, and were equipped with different cover systems in order to obtain further
knowledge of the GCLs performance. GCLs with granular and powder bentonite filling have
been investigated since 1998 and were rebuilt in the year 2010.
GENERAL LYSIMETER SET-UP
With a lysimeter, only a “closed” section of soil and liner system can be modelled. For the
evaluation of lysimeter tests, a simplified water balance equation [1] can be used, in which
interception and surface runoff are not taken into account:
[1] N-ET-(DS+DA)-ΔS = 0
In this equation:
N: Precipitation
ET: Evapotranspiration
DA: Drainage water collection
DS: Permeation through the GCL
S: Water stored
Six lysimeters (lysimeter 1 to 6) were installed in 1998 within a hill-shaped soil body to
reduce any side effects due to e.g. temperature changes. Surface runoff was not taken into
account as the lysimeters were designed in such a way that there was no surface run-off. This
way no surface runoff from outside the lysimeter could enter the test section. Inside of the hill is
a measuring room which contains the devices for measuring the precipitation, the amount of
drainage water above the GCLs and the amount of permeation water passing through the GCLs.
The lysimeter 1 to 3 were installed in 1998 and the GCLs have not been replaced since then. In
2010 new GCL types and cover soil systems were installed in lysimeter 4 to 6.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 119
Figure 1 scheematically sh
hows the cro
oss-sections of the systemms, in particcular the diffferent
soil coveers above thee GCLs sincce 2010. Tabble 1 showss the differennt material pparameters oof the
cover soiils.
Figuree 1. Cross-seections of lyysimeter 1 too 6.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 120
Table 1. Different material parameters of the cover soils.
Lysimeter 1 (before 2002) and Lysimeter 1 (after 2002) and
lysimeter 2 to 6 (before 2010) lysimeter 2 to 6 (after 2010)
silty sand (S, u) medium coarse sand, coarse
Soil type sandy (mS, gs)
2.6% 0%
Ignition loss (DIN 18128)
Volume of pores related 0.35 0.52
to total volume (DIN
18126)
approx. 1.7 g/cm³ 1.3 g/cm³
Dry density (DIN 18125)
Grain density (DIN 2.65 g/cm³ 2.6 g/cm³
18124)
approx. 10-7 m/s approx. 10-3 m/s
Permeability (DIN 18130)
Water content at approx. 15% approx. 0.1%
installation time (DIN
18121)
Calcium content (DIN < 1% < 1%
18129)
17% 9%
Field capacity (DIN 4220)
General results. Figure 2 shows daily results of the precipitation, drainage run-off over the
barrier and permeation through the GCL for lysimeter 1, which was re-constructed in the
summer 2002 with a sand cover over the GCL. While the GCL remained the same, the
permeation values showed a significant decrease since the implementation of the sand cover
layer and stayed constant low since 2002. Further, it can be recognized that the drainage run-off
values increased in the same time period, due to the substitution of the cohesive, silty cover soil
with the sand cover layer. This allows the GCL to receive more water and therefore increases
and maintains the moisture content of bentonite in the GCL. A higher suction capacity of the
cover soil obviously does not improve the moisture content of the bentonite in the GCL or
maintains a higher moisture content due to the less water permeating through the cover soil.
Additionally the stored water in the cover soil is released at low air humidity back to the air
rather than to the bentonite.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 121
80
70
60
rainfall [mm] .
50
40
30
20
10
0
32
28
drainage [mm]
24
20
16
12
8
4
0
2.5
Exchange of the silty material to a
2.0 medium sand with a higher water p
permeation [mm] .
ermeability
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Sep 99
Sep 00
Sep 01
Sep 02
Sep 03
Sep 04
Sep 05
Sep 06
Sep 07
Sep 08
Sep 09
Sep 10
Sep 11
Sep 12
Sep 13
Sep 14
Sep 15
May 99
May 00
May 01
May 02
May 03
May 04
May 05
May 06
May 07
May 08
May 09
May 10
May 11
May 12
May 13
May 14
May 15
Jan 99
Jan 00
Jan 01
Jan 02
Jan 03
Jan 04
Jan 05
Jan 06
Jan 07
Jan 08
Jan 09
Jan 10
Jan 11
Jan 12
Jan 13
Jan 14
Jan 15
Figure 2: Amounts of rainfall (N), drainage water (DA) and permeation water (DS) in
Lysimeter 1.
It is obvious that the permanent water supply leads to a high sealing efficiency of the GCL. For
this reason the cover soil layers of the other lysimeters were also replaced with sand cover layers
(cross-section Figure 1), which had a higher permeability value. The following figure 3 shows
the effect of the soil replacement, which took place in July 2010.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 122
80
70
Niederschlag [mm] .
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
60
40,25
50
Dränage [mm]
40
30
20
10
0
2.5 Exchange of the silty material to a
medium sand with a higher water p
Durchsickerung [mm] .
2.0 ermeability
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
May…
Sep 99
Sep 00
Sep 01
Sep 02
Sep 03
Sep 04
Sep 05
Sep 06
Sep 07
Sep 08
Sep 09
Sep 10
Sep 11
Sep 12
Sep 13
Sep 14
Sep 15
Jan 99
Jan 00
Jan 01
Jan 02
Jan 03
Jan 04
Jan 05
Jan 06
Jan 07
Jan 08
Jan 09
Jan 10
Jan 11
Jan 12
Jan 13
Jan 14
Jan 15
Figure 3. Daily data of rainfall, drainage and permeation water with the vertical marking
line (red) of the soil replacement date in July 2010 in lysimeter 2.
The significantly lower permeation through the GCL, even though it was still the same GCL,
decreased to nearly zero after the first summer after the replacement of the drainage material.
This sand layer allowed more water to reach the bentonite of the GCL thus improving its sealing
behavior.
Comparison to a product with a granular filling. The data of the sealing system installed in
lysimeter 3 and unchanged until now indicate the efficiency of the geosynthetic clay liner with a
line that has distinct high and low peaks. In the hydrological summer period, the efficiency
values are decreasing significantly, just to climb again in the winter period with its
correspondingly high drainage water runoffs.
As mentioned earlier it was noted in the past years that granular bentonite in the GCL
might be responsible for the significant higher permeation values through the GCL (lysimeter 3)
than comparable lysimeters with powder bentonite (Lysimeter 1 and 2). The highest permeation
value through a GCL with granular bentonite was recognized with 174.4mm in the winter period
2010 and 38.8 mm in the summer period 2010 (Figure 4).
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 123
Figuree 4. Data of permeation
p with the veertical mark king line (reed) of the sooil replacem
ment
date in July 2010 inn lysimeter 1 (powder),, lysimeter 2 (powder) and lysimetter 3 (granu ular)
with 1 m cover
c soil (220kPa).
This
T similar effect of higher
h perm
meation undder 20kPa cconfining sttress of graanular
bentonitee GCLs wass also investigated and published
p byy Bouazza eet al. (2006) using gas aas the
permeantt agent. Figu me moisture ccontent, e.g. 60%
ure 5 shows that a granular bentonitee with a sam
has a hig
gher gas perrmittivity thaan a powderr bentonite, meaning thaat a powderr bentonite ccloses
bentonitee pores fastter and morre efficient. To achievee a similar permittivityy, the GCL with
granular bentonite needs
n more water abso orption (appprox. 75%) than a GC CL with poowder
bentonitee (60%).
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 124
Figuree 5. Data of permeation
p with the veertical mark king line (reed) of the sooil replacem
ment
date in July 2010 inn lysimeter 1 (powder),, lysimeter 2 (powder) and lysimetter 3 (granu ular)
with 1 m cover
c soil (220kPa).
The
T permeatiion behavior under con nfining stresss of 5kPa sshows this eeffect even more
significanntly. After reeplacing thee silty cover soil with thee sand coverr layer the ppermeation vvalues
slightly decreased
d in
n the following time periiods. Howevver, the totall values are still significcantly
higher th
han the valuees of GCLs withw powder bentonite. T This mechannism does obbviously not work
if the GCCL has a low wer confining g stress as in
n case of Lyysimeter 4 too 6. The GC CL in Lysimeeter 5
was replaaced in the summer of 2011 and ex xchanged w with a GCL w with granulaar bentonite. The
results arre shown in figure
f 5.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 125
Figuree 5. Data of permeation
p with the veertical mark
king line (reed) of the sooil replacem
ment
date in July 2010 inn lysimeter 4 (powder),, lysimeter 5 (granularr) and lysimeter 6 (powder)
with 0,5m cover soil (110kPa).
Itt is obviouss, that the GCL
G with the
t granularr filling is not able to re-plastify after
rewetting
g in the winter periods. This leads to
t a strong iincrease of tthe permeatiion rates thrrough
the GCL.
CONCL
LUSIONS
The follo
owing conclu usions can be drawn:
• Large scale testing in ly ysimeters un nder in-situ conditions iis an effectivve and econnomic
way to provve the long-tterm permeaation behavioor of cover systems withh GCLs.
• A replacement of silty cover soil with w a water permeabilitty of 10-7 m//s by sand w with a
-3
water permmeability of about
a 10 m/sm leads to a decrease oof permeatioon, due to a more
steady wateer supply and thereforee less desicccation of thhe GCL durring the sum mmer
periods.
• GCL-sealing g systems grranular filled GCL show w a differennt sealing beehavior accoording
to wetting and
a drying cy ycles.
• GCL sealin ng systems withw granular filled GC CL do not show an accceptable seealing
efficiency under
u an oveerburden of 0.50 m in thicckness (10 kP Pa)
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 126
Based on these experiences in field additional laboratory studies were carried out to
explain this behavior. Samples were hydrated to approx. 100% moisture content (what was found
in field studies) and desiccated over time. Further these samples were rehydrated and dried
(multiple cycles) under different confining stresses to investigate the desiccation behavior,
especially of the shape and size of desiccation cracks. These tests are still running.
REFERENCES
Bluemel W., Müller-Kirchenbauer, A., von Maubeuge Kent P.: (2010): Performance of
Geosynthetic clay liners in landfill cap sysems – Physical processes in the bentonite layer
during drying and rehydration periods. 3rd International Symposium on Geosnthetic Clay
Liners, Würzburg, Germany.
Bouazza A., Gates, W.P:, Abuel-Naga, H. (2006): Factors impacting liquid and gas flow through
geosynthetic clay liners – Recent developments. Commemorating two decades of
geosynthetics in India,Indian International Geosynthetics Society, New Delhi, Chapter 9.
Henken-Mellies, W.U. et al. (2002): Long-term field test of clay geosynthetic barrier in a landfill
cover system, Proceedings of the International Symposium IS Nuremberg. Nuremberg,
Germany.
Melchior, S. et al. (2006): Zwischenergebnisse der Versuchsfelder der MEAB zu alternativen
Oberflächenabdichtungssystemen auf der Deponie Deetz. In: Henken-Mellies, U. (Hrsg.):
17. Nürnberger Deponieseminar 2006. Abdichtung, Stilllegung und Nachsorge von
Deponien. Veröffentlichungen des LGA-Grundbauinstituts, Nürnberg, Heft 85, S. 105-
128.
Wolsfeld, N. (2005): Bodenphysikalische Eignung mineralischer
Oberflächenabdichtungssysteme für Monodeponien der Stahlindustrie. Schriftenreihe des
Instituts für Bodenkunde und Waldernährungslehre der Albert-Ludwigs-Universität
Freiburg i.Br. Heft 43 Freiburger Bodenkundliche Abhandlungen.
© ASCE
View publication stats
