11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems: 11.1 Methods For Monitoring Geomembrane Liners

11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems
11.1 Methods for Monitoring Geomembrane Liners
HDPE geomembranes manufactured and installed to high standards

(Averesch and Schicketanz 1998; Müller 2001) are impervious, i.e. there
are no actual pore channels or faults which would allow water to seep
through driven by a hydraulic gradient (hydrostatic pressure, gravitation or
capillary force). Consequently, the flow of water and advective transfer
(see Sect. 7.3) of dissolved contaminants is prevented. As long as HDPE
geomembranes are not damaged mechanically, they remain impervious
under any column height of standing water, which is practically relevant in
geotechnical applications: barodiffusion (see Sect. 7.2) can be ignored in
nearly all cases. HDPE geomembranes are also almost completely insensi-
tive to large-area compression (hydrostatic pressure or a uniformly distrib-
uted load). On the other hand, poor installation procedures such as bad
craftsmanship in handling construction tools and machines or inappropri-
ate subgrade or cover material (see Chap. 8) may cause damage even to a
2.5 mm HDPE geomembrane, in spite of its considerable mechanical ro-
bustness. Under extremely unfavourable conditions (severe damage, highly
permeable subgrade and steep hydraulic gradient) large volumes of water
may seep through holes and cracks. One of the major advantages of this
liner element, i.e. total imperviousness to liquids, would then be compro-
mised.
There are three options to prevent this from happening:
1. Preventing damage from occurring in the first place. For example, by
placing strict requirements on technical expertise and the experience
of specialist installation companies and implementing multi-level
construction quality assurance (CQA) (Müller 2001).
2. Minimising the effects of damage. For example, by combining ge-
omembranes with a low-permeability subgrade (e.g. geomembrane
plus a compacted clay liner or other mineral liner or geomembrane
plus geosynthetic clay liner (Simon and Müller 2004)), which can
considerably reduce the effect of holes, or with a capillary barrier,
422 11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems
which can laterally divert water penetrating through a hole (see Sects.
7.4 and 7.5).
3. Identifying any damage which does occur. For example, by imple-
menting leak monitoring systems which can reliably detect and local-
ise holes and cracks in a geomembrane during construction and op-
eration of the lining system (Hix 1998).
The first option should always be a matter of course. However, in many
projects CQA requirements are either not comprehensively met or not suf-
ficiently robust. The second option points out the advantages of composite
liners, which help to prevent damage and to minimise other potential de-
fects. In addition, a combination of geomembrane and mineral liner is nec-
essary wherever the prevention of diffusive transport of organic contami-
nants is crucial. In many countries some composite liners for basal liners
and also for caps of landfills were established as technical standards and
extensive quality assurance measures and strict standards for certification
procedures were determined (Holzlöhner et al. 1995). All in all, the com-
bination of the first two options is regarded as preventive so-called “pas-
sive” concept of safety, aiming at a reliable, efficient, failsafe and fault-
tolerant liner. The third option, that of long-term monitoring of liner sys-
tems, is certainly not available in cases where holes detected during opera-
tion or aftercare can only be repaired at extremely high cost if at all (e.g. in
landfill basal liners). However, in landfill caps and many other geotechni-
cal applications the actual sealing components are relatively easily acces-
sible for repair. In Germany the “Technical Instructions on Hazardous
Wastes” require for solid hazardous waste landfills, that “...landfill capping
systems (must be) constructed such that any leak may be located and re-
paired during the period of aftercare.” Therefore a combination of the first
and third options represents an equivalent, reasonable and possibly eco-
nomic alternative, at least in terms of the protection goals that must be
achieved. This solution, which makes a multi-component, error-tolerating
liner structure superfluous, can be considered an “active” safety concept.
Which combination of the above three options best meets the technical
and economic conditions and the requirements on fault tolerance and im-
perviousness can only be decided in the context of a given geotechnical
sealing project. The considerations below will, however, show that an ac-
tive safety concept makes great demands on materials, specialist compa-
nies and quality assurance for the leak monitoring system and only by ful-
filling these demands can the active safety concept replace the passive
concept of safety. Even if applying leak monitoring systems, no conces-
sions should therefore be made to the preventive quality control require-
ments.

11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems: 11.1 Methods For Monitoring Geomembrane Liners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems: 11.1 Methods For Monitoring Geomembrane Liners

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems: 11.1 Methods For Monitoring Geomembrane Liners

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

11 Leak Detection and Monitoring Systems

11.1 Methods for Monitoring Geomembrane Liners

HDPE geomembranes manufactured and installed to high standards

You might also like