Drainage Design Manual Final CD GSE

DRAINAGE
DESIGN MANUAL
DRAINAGE
DESIGN MANUAL - SECOND EDITION

June 2007
CO-AUTHORS
Dhani Narejo, Ph.D., P.E., Caro Engineering
Robert Bachus, Ph.D., P.E., GeoSyntec Consultants
Richard Thiel, P.E., Thiel Engineering
Te-Yang Soong, Ph.D., P.E., CTI & Associates
Mengjia Li, Ph.D., P.E., GSE Lining Technology, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Preface
1. Introduction
1.1. Terms of Reference.....1-1
1.2. Background..1-1
1.3. Organization....1-2
2. Fundamentals of Geonets and Geocomposites
2.1. Introduction......2-1
2.2. Basic Description and Function of Geonets and Geocomposites.....2-1
2.2.1. GSE HyperNet and FabriNet Product Line.2-3
2.2.2. GSE PermaNet Product Line...2-5
2.2.3. GSE BioDrain Product Line....2-8
2.3. Transmissivity and Modification Factors...2-11
2.4. Hydraulic Conductivity of Geonets and Geocomposites.......2-14
2.5. Granular Materials vs. Geocomposites for Drainage Applications....2-15
2.6. Geotextile Permittivity and Apparent Opening Size......2-17
2.7. Geotextile Survivability.....2-20
2.8. Geotextile, Geonet and Geocomposite Porosity....2-20
2.9. Geonet and Geocomposite Interface Shear Strength.....2-20
2.10. Ply-adhesion or Peel Strength of Geocomposites.2-21
2.11. Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Program for Geocomposites.2-22
2.11.1. Product Quality Assurance Testing2-22
2.11.2. Construction Monitoring2-23
3. Typical Landfill Applications
3.1. Introduction......3-1
3.2. Final Cover Drainage...3-2
3.3. Landfill Gas and Side Slope Seep Collection..3-2
3.4. Leachate Collection and Removal System..3-3
3.5. Leakage Detection System..3-3
4. Design Methods and Concepts
4.1. Introduction.....4-1
4.2. Percolation Rate and Required Transmissivity...4-1
4.2.1. Final Cover Drainage Layer....4-1
4.2.2. Landfill Gas Collection Layer.4-5
4.2.3. Landfill Leachate Collection and Removal System....4-7
4.2.4. Leakage Detection System..4-9
4.3. Allowable Transmissivity4-13
4.3.1. Drainage Factor of Safety, FSD.4-14
4.3.2. Chemical Clogging Reduction Factor, RFCC.4-14
4.3.3. Biological Clogging Reduction Factor, RFBC....4-15
4.3.4. Creep Reduction Factor, RFCR...4-16
4.4. Design Compression Strength of Geonets and Geocomposites..4-16
4.4.1. Introduction...4-16
4.4.2. Data and Analysis..4-17
4.4.3. Design Method..4-20

4.5. Seepage Forces and Cover Soil Stability...4-20
4.5.1. Parallel Submergence Ratio (PSR) ...4-21
4.5.2. Cover Veneer Slope stability.4-23
4.6. Geotextile Filter Design.....4-27
4.6.1. Permeability Criteria.4-27
4.6.2. Retention Criteria.4-28
4.6.3. Long-term Effects, Soil-geotextile Compatibility and Clogging.4-28
5.
Design Flow Charts

5.1. Introduction.....5-1
5.2. Final Cover Design Flow Chart...5-3
5.3. Landfill Gas Collection Design Flow Chart....5-4
5.4. Leachate Collection Design Flow Chart..5-5
5.5. Leak Detection Design Flow Chart.....5-6
6. Design Examples
6.1. Final Cover Drainage Geocomposite Design..6-1
6.2. Landfill Gas Collection Geocomposite Design...6-6
6.3. Leachate Collection Design...6-13
6.4. Leak Detection Design...6-22
6.5. Final Cover Drainage Based on Seepage Analysis....6-28
References.R-1
Appendices
Appendix A 100-Hour Transmissivity Data for Various GSE Products....A-1
Appendix B Creep Data for Selected Products.......B-1
Appendix C Example Geonet Specifications......C-1
Appendix D Example Geocomposite Specifications......D-1
The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition
Preface
PREFACE
The purpose of this manual is to provide the design engineer with the material properties and
design procedures pertaining to drainage geonets and geocomposites in a wide variety of
applications. These procedures may range from being fairly straightforward to quite complex in
scope, depending on the application and design process. For this reason the author(s) have
compiled various sources of information into a single easy-to-use reference manual that will
enable the engineer to realize the project design faster and more efficiently than ever before. The
referenced procedures are intended only as general guidelines for most design situations. More
detailed analyses or material testing may provide relevant information for any particular project.
Moreover, site-specific transmissivity and direct shear testing are essential in most projects
involving drainage geonets and geocomposites.
It should be noted here that a design manual is no substitute for the skills of an experienced
design professional. Indeed, the manual should be viewed from the premise that the choice of
various design assumptions, input parameters and material properties can only be made by an
experienced design engineer with a solid background in geotechnical engineering and
geosynthetics. Therefore, the authors of this manual and the sponsoring organization--GSE
Lining Technology, Inc.--assume no responsibility or liability in connection with the application
of information presented in this manual.
Chapter 1 Introduction
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Terms of Reference
This manual has been prepared to provide the practicing designer with instructions regarding the
design of landfill drainage systems using geonets and geocomposites. Although sponsored by
GSE Lining Technology, the manual is written with the intended goal of developing generic
specifications that will facilitate the use of products of several other manufacturers. The manual
provides general guidelines but the specific design for a particular project is the responsibility of
the designer. It is the sole responsibility of the engineer to assess and verify the applicability of
the design methods presented here to any given project. It is strongly recommended that all the
data presented in the appendices of this manual should be verified by contacting the
manufacturer at time of the design. The author of this manual and GSE Lining Technology, Inc.
do not assume any liability, direct or indirect, resulting from the use of the information presented
in this manual.
1.2 Background
Geonets and geocomposites have proliferated in the civil engineering community over the past
several years. Extensive research has been devoted to the use and performance of these synthetic
drainage materials, and several authors have highlighted the advantages and limitations of these
products. As a result of this research, specific design recommendations regarding the use of
geonets and geocomposites have been developed and implemented. At the same time, the
manufacturing community has developed new products which have been introduced to the
profession for use in an ever-increasing range of applications. However, no single reference
source has presented step-by-step design guidance for the many commercial products to date, as
they are employed in a broad range of applications. Thus the need for the present manual.
Different design engineers working on similar drainage projects will often recommend products
with flow characteristics that differ by as much as an order of magnitude. The difference can
usually be attributed to one or more of the following factors: (i) different design assumptions
regarding site, storm, or product characteristics; (ii) different design models, such as Hydrologic
Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP), Unit Gradient, seepage analysis, etc.; (iii) different
interpretation of material performance; such as transmissivity and interface shear data; (iv)
different reduction and safety factors; and (v) a general lack of understanding of basic drainage
design concepts. The objective of this design guide is to reduce, if not eliminate, the arbitrariness
and inconsistencies involved in the design and selection of drainage layers. To this end, this
manual presents information regarding: (i) a step-by-step rational design methodology; (ii) a
discussion of the parameters used in design, including a summary of typical values for different
applications; and (iii) several design examples illustrating the design methodology.
While it is recognized that geonets and geocomposites are used in a wide range of high-flow and
low-flow applications, with numerous uses in both civil and environmental projects, this guide
1-1
focuses on the design and selection of geosynthetic drainage materials for the four primary
landfill applications of cover drainage, gas removal, leachate collection, and leak detection. The
design concepts and methodologies presented here can, however, be readily applied to many
other types of drainage projects involving roadways, buildings, lagoons, retaining walls, slabs,
etc.
1.3 Organization
This manual is organized as follows:
Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the fundamentals of geonets and geocomposites,

including a comparison with granular materials, and introduces the performance properties of
drainage materials. This chapter also introduces the use of geonets and geocomposites in
landfill applications. Several different product lines of GSE geonets and geocomposites are
discussed with a particular emphasis on differences in the structure and performance of
various types of materials.
Chapter 3 describes each of the four major applications of geonets and geocomposites in
landfills.
Chapter 4 presents design concepts, methods, equations and explanations. All other chapters
serve either as a prerequisite for this chapter (such as Chapter 2) or are based upon it (such as
Chapters 5 and 6). Two basic design aspects structural and hydraulic are presented in this
chapter that the engineer must evaluate for the specific project.
Chapter 5 presents step-by-step design method flow charts which can be referenced during
design to ensure that all aspects of a design are consistently addressed.
Chapter 6 presents design examples illustrating the use of the concepts and methods
presented in the previous chapters.
Appendices A through D provide the supporting technical/design information for Chapters 2
through 6 and include the following:
o
o
o
o
Appendix A: 100-hour transmissivity test results for various GSE products;

Appendix B: Creep test data for various GSE geonets;
Appendix C: Example of standard specifications for geonets; and
Appendix D: Example of standard specifications for geocomposites.
The design of geosynthetic drainage layers involves calculations related to a) transmissivity (or
flow rate), b) structural strength, c) filtration, and d) slope stability. The primary focus of this
drainage design manual is on transmissivity and structural strength; the other design aspects are
covered in significantly less detail. Although the information presented here regarding filtration
and slope stability may be adequate for routine design calculations, the reader is encouraged to
refer to additional resources on these topics including Luettich et al. [1992], Giroud et al.,
[1995], and Soong & Koerner [1996, 1997].
It is important to remember that a drainage layer is only as good as the filter surrounding it. The
function of an otherwise excellent geosynthetic drainage layer may be compromised by poor
geotextile filter design. This is especially a concern for geosynthetic drainage layers due to a
limited pore space available for liquid flow in the geonet core.
1-2
If water head is allowed to build up above the geocomposite placed on a slope, the stability of
the slope can be indeed be jeopardized. Therefore, the geocomposite must be designed to convey
the entire flow related to the design impingement rate. The engineer should thus carefully
consider the magnitude of the design impingement. Selection of an extremely conservative
design impingement rate often increases the cost of selected drainage materials.
Since the publication of the original edition of the manual in June 2004, a significant amount of
compression strength and creep test data has become available for many types of geonets. Based
on this new information, recommendations for the required structural strength of geonets have
been developed. This revised edition of the manual covers the design recommendations for
compression strength of geonets which are not included the original version issued in June 2004.
The revised procedures recommend an upper limit to overburden stress that any particular
product can sustain and still maintain the as-manufactured structure. This addition to the design
procedures recommended in the original edition is considered necessary to explicitly account for
the visco-elastic nature of the geonets.
1-3
Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites
CHAPTER 2
FUNDAMENTALS OF GEONETS AND GEOCOMPOSITES
2.1 Introduction
Any detailed design of landfill drainage layers requires at least a basic knowledge of the
performance characteristics of materials being considered for use on a project. Project
specifications address most requirements in bid documents along with reference to test methods
that must be followed. Design calculations often not expressed in project specifications - may
also mandate the use of additional properties that must be obtained for the specific material being
considered. This chapter provides an overview of various geonet and geocomposite properties
that may be required for a typical design. To assist the designer with a preliminary design,
example test data is provided both in this chapter and in the appendices, for almost all the geonet
and geocomposite properties under consideration. However, it is important for the designer to
perform actual testing on the material being considered for use on a particular project prior to
completing the final design. This chapter would not be complete without some discussion of
installation procedures. Therefore, a brief description of construction quality assurance
procedures for geonets and geocomposites is provided at the end of the chapter.
2.2 Basic Description and Function of Geonets and Geocomposites

A geocomposite drainage material consists of a combination of a geonet and a geotextile, where
the geotextile is heat-laminated to one or both sides of the geonet. The geonet is made of
extruded High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) in a manner that forms a relatively open structure
ideal for the in-plane conveyance of liquids and/or gases. The primary purpose of the geotextile
is to act as a filter and separator between the surrounding soil and the geonet, to prevent the
intrusion of soil particles into the geonet structure. Another important purpose of the geotextile
component is to improve the interface shear strength of the drainage system, as a geonet-togeomembrane interface is typically significantly weaker than a geotextile-to-textured HDPE
geomembrane interface. It is the geonet core that is the primary basis for the drainage function
of a geocomposite. As such, the manual places emphasis on proper selection of the core of the
geocomposite by taking into consideration structural properties in addition to hydraulic
characteristics.
Various geonet products are differentiated in terms of their structure and properties. A typical
biplanar geonet consists of two equally-sized sets of extruded parallel ribs at various angles to
the machine direction, as illustrated in Figure 2.1. A triplanar geonet, on the other hand, consists
of three sets of ribs, the first set being the major ribs, which run parallel to the direction of flow,
and is sandwiched between a set of minor ribs bonded on the top and bottom of the major ribs, as
shown in Figure 2.2. There are other types of core structures that are used in landfills in the US
on a much smaller scale, but most of the projects in the US - and increasingly worldwide feature some type of biplanar geonet core for landfill drainage layers.
Drainage geocomposites are referred to as either single-sided or doublesided, depending on
whether a geotextile is bonded on one or both sides. For any given material combination, the
transmissivity of a double-sided geocomposite is less than that of a single-sided geocomposite,
2-1
which in turn, is less than that of the geonet alone. As expected, the reduced transmissivity
comes at an increased material cost as one goes from a geonet to a single-sided composite to a
double-sided composite. It is thus logical and cost-effective to select a geonet as well as a singleor double-sided geocomposite when each of the relevant design considerations is appropriately
and consistently addressed. The most important constraint on using geonets as leak detection
layers is their low interface shear strength with geomembranes. As such, a geonet is rarely used
in landfills except when slopes are less than 5%. Engineers almost always prefer a geocomposite
over a geonet due to the poor interface shear strength of the latter with geomembranes.
Figure 2.1. Structure of a typical biplanar geonet.
Figure 2.2. Structure of the triplanar geonet.
2.2.1 GSE HyperNet and FabriNet Product Line

GSE HyperNet geonets and FabriNet geocomposites are representative of conventional biplanar
drainage materials that have been used in landfills for more than twenty years. The structure of a
2-2
typical traditional geonet is presented in Figure 2.1. As mentioned earlier, all biplanar geonets
consist of two layers of strands crossing diagonally to form a planar structure that is ideal for
transmitting fluid. Various types of biplanar geonets are distinguished by the type of strands: the
heavier and bulkier the strands, the higher the cost of the product and the more optimal the
geonets performance at high stress. As such, geonet manufacturers offer a series of products
suitable for different project requirements. Products with lighter strands having a low mass per
unit area are typically used for low stress applications, such as landfill caps, while thicker,
heavier, products are intended for high stress use, as in landfill drainage layers, both primary and
secondary.
GSE HyperNet geonets are manufactured from prime quality high density polyethylene (HDPE)
resin that has proven to be durable and chemically stable in the typical bio-chemical environment
of a landfill. Products are manufactured under strict quality control guidelines and are tested in a
quality control laboratory to ensure that both product and project specifications are satisfied. The
quality and versatility of these materials have been proven in over twenty years of use in
thousands of projects all over the world. In most landfill drainage projects in the US, a
conventional biplanar geonet of one type or another is utilized for drainage.
Figure 2.3(a). GSE HyperNet geonet and GSE FabriNet geocomposite.
GSE offers six different types of HyperNet geonets geocomposites: HyperNet Light, HyperNet,
HyperNet HF, HyperNet HS, HyperNet UF and HyperNet TRx. A design engineer typically
performs calculations related to a project and then selects a product that best meets the project
requirements at the lowest possible cost to the client.
HyperNet Light, also referred to as HyperNet CP, is intended for landfill caps under
conditions of a low overburden stress and a low required transmissivity.
HyperNet and HyperNet HF are standard biplanar geonets that are used in landfill caps
as well as liner systems under moderate to high transmissivity and stress requirements.
2-3
HyperNet HS and HyperNet UF are typically intended for relatively high overburden
stress and high transmissivity requirements.
HyperNet TRx is the high-end product of HyperNet series in transmissivity performance
due to its unique structure, as shown in Figure 2.3(b). One set of strand is oriented to be
parallel to the machine direction so as to maximize the cross-sectional opening area of the
flow channels and transport liquid/gas most efficiently.
The FabriNet drainage geocomposite consist of a HyperNet geonet core that is heat-laminated on
one or both sides to a nonwoven needlepunched geotextile. The choice of the fabric materials
and whether a single or a double-sided composite is used depend on the application and
performance requirements. There are six corresponding drainage geocomposites associated with
the six types of the HyperNet geonet core: FabriNet Light (or FabriCap), FabriNet, FabriNet HF,
FabriNet HS, FabriNet UF and FabriNet TRx.
Figure 2.3(b). GSE HyperNet TRx geonet.

Appendices A and B present transmissivity and creep data, respectively, for various types of
HyperNet geonets and FabriNet geocomposites. While this information is suitable for a
preliminary design or for comparison of different products or various alternative designs, it is
strongly advisable that the design engineer undertake additional testing for any site-specific
conditions. It should also be noted that the information presented in the appendices is current and
valid at the time this manual is being compiled. As manufacturers change products constantly in
response to market conditions and the latest improvements in manufacturing technology it is
possible for published data to become obsolete with time and lose its validity for use on a
project.
2.2.2 GSE PermaNet Product Line

The depth of waste in a landfill cell can vary significantly from project to project. There are
landfills with as shallow a waste mass as 50 ft while there are a few projects, especially in the
northeast United States, with a waste depth of around 500 ft. As the depth of waste increases, so
does the stress on drainage layer, since stress is simply waste depth multiplied by waste density.
2-4
Overburden stress is thus an important design consideration when selecting a geosynthetic

drainage layer, as these materials are visco-elastic in nature which means that their performance
is a function of time and stress. This is clearly observed in a transmissivity test performed in a
lab where the measured value of transmissivity decreases over time. The transmissivity of a
material at the end of a project design life would be much lower than that tested in the lab. The
rate of decrease in performance depends, among other factors, on strength of the material: the
stronger the material, the less the effect of creep on material properties. Where overburden stress
is very high, such as in deep landfills, any material of inadequate strength can fail structurally,
and a concomitant sudden decrease in hydraulic performance can result.
Figure 2.4(a). GSE PermaNet UL geonet and geocomposite.
GSE PermaNet geonets are manufactured with a patented structure that is specifically designed
to withstand high stress. The design elements that endow PermaNet geonet with exceptional
properties are its unique strand structure, vertical strand orientation, and high junction area
between the ribs. The difference between the structure of PermaNet and conventional biplanar
geonets is clearly visible by comparing their samples. While the strands of a conventional
biplanar geonet make a definite angle to the vertical, this angle is zero for the PermaNet geonet.
Figure 2.4(b) shows a comparison of the strand cross sections of both conventional HyperNet
and PermaNet. Moreover, PermaNet strands are much bulkier and their junctions are much
sturdier. The strand compression and rotation that causes excessive compression creep in
HyperNet geonets at high stress is virtually absent in PermaNet geonets. The resulting capacity
of PermaNet geonets to withstand higher loads for much longer times results in sustained high
transmissivity. Figures 2.3(a) and 2.4(a) provide snap shots of conventional and PermaNet
biplanar geonets, respectively.
2-5
GSE HyperNet geonet
GSE PermaNet geonet

Figure 2.4 (b). Comparisons of the Strand Cross Sections HyperNet vs. PermaNet.
GSE offers three different types of PermaNet geonets and geocomposites: PermaNet UL,
PermaNet HL and PermaNet TRX:
The PermaNet UL product is intended for very high stress applications.

The PermaNet HL geonet is a low-mass PermaNet version that is intended for landfills with
moderate to high stress. PermaNet HL has approximately the same mass per unit area as a
high-performance conventional biplanar geonet. However, as a result of the zeroinclination strand cross section design, PermaNet HL has much higher compression strength
than conventional biplanar geonets of the same mass.
PermaNet TRx is a special type of PermaNet product with unit weight lighter than PermaNet
HL. However, by applying a unique straight strand orientation, PermaNet TRx still retains
high machine direction flow rate as well as the superior compression and creep resistance
properties. A picture of PermaNet TRx Geocomposite is shown in Figure 2.4(c).
2-6
Flow Direction
Figure 2.4(c). GSE PermaNet TRx geocomposite.
All PermaNet geonets have compression strength of higher than 40,000 psf. Compression
strength is one of the most important properties of geonets. The transmissivity of geonets and
geocomposites decreases sharply at stresses beyond peak strength as a result of change in the
structure. It is therefore critical that the compression strength of a geonet be high enough to
withstand overburden stress throughout the life of a project. Figure 2.5 illustrates the difference
in compression strength between a conventional and a PermaNet geonet. Note in the figure that
PermaNet is not subject to the distinct roll-over typical of biplanar geonets. This means that
PermaNet geonets can sustain a high transmissivity without a structural collapse even at
relatively high overburden stress. The curve for PermaNet shows no failure even at 400 psi,
which is equivalent to a landfill height of 576 feet at a waste density of 100 lbs/cubic feet. When
subjected to constant stress, geonets progressively decrease in thickness in a process called
compression creep. Since the transmissivity of geonets and geocomposites depends primarily on
the thickness and structure of their core, any eventual decrease in thickness or distortion in
structure will diminish their transmissivity. A product with a higher creep resistance will
therefore provide a better transmissivity. Appendices A and B include transmissivity and creep
data for PermaNet geonets and geocomposites. A quick comparison of this data with the same
properties of conventional biplanar geonets shows the clear advantages inherent to the structure
of PermaNet geonet. Even for a stress as high as 25,000 psf, there is a negligible decrease in
thickness of the PermaNet geonet. When a project involves a high overburden stress, PermaNet with its more stable structure - is certainly the material of choice.
2-7
Figure 2.5. Compression strength of HyperNet vs. PermaNet.
2.2.3 GSE BioDrain Product Line

Traditionally, geonet drainage geocomposites have been available only with nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles. Such products have performed exceptionally well for landfill
applications which continue to be their primary market focus. There is growing interest in the use
of drainage geocomposites in such applications as retaining walls, pavements, rooftops, slabs,
etc. where different geotextile properties may be beneficial or even necessary. Even within the
traditional landfill market, there are new opportunities and challenges related to leachate
distribution in bioreactor landfills. The range of performance characteristics of geocomposites,
including filtration properties, interface shear strength, transmissivity and ultraviolet resistance
can be significantly expanded by considering woven geotextiles. Table 2.1 compares filtration
and UV properties of both woven and nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles. Figure 2.6 shows a
BioDrain drainage geocomposite with a woven geotextile.
One project where the BioDrain geocomposite has been recently used is Melissa Landfill in
North Texas outside Dallas. Figure 2.7 depicts the installation of a drainage geocomposite on this
project, where the designer required a woven geotextile so that the geocomposite could be left
exposed for more than a month. This was possible only with a woven geotextile, as
needlepunched geotextiles have limitations in exposure to UV or sunlight. Another project where
a woven-geonet drainage geocomposite has been used successfully is the field-scale testing plots
at McGill Road Landfill, Jackson, Michigan (Khire & Haydar, 2007). Here a woven geotextile
was selected for leachate distribution by utilizing the opening size range provided in Table 2.1.
Figure 2.8 presents a photograph of the geocomposite installed on this job. This field-scale study
led to the following key conclusions regarding the use of geocomposite for leachate
recirculation:
2-8
a) BioDrain type of drainage geocomposite is a possible option for leachate recirculation

systems in bioreactor landfills.
b) The BioDrain blanket transported the leachate effectively with the rate of flow of
leachate being proportional to the rate of injection of leachate.
c) BioDrain blanket provided hydraulic continuity. Clogging of the BioDrain blanket was
not observed during the 12 month monitoring period of the leachate recirculation study.
Figure 2.6. GSE BioDrain Drainage geocomposites.
Table 2.1 Range of opening size and UV resistance for commercially available nonwoven
needlepunched and woven geotextiles.
Geotextile Type
Opening Size (mm) Range
Recommended
Maximum UV Exposure
Needle-punched
0.1 to 0.2
1 month (preferably 15
Nonwoven
days)
Woven
0.05 to 0.4
6 months
GSE currently offers two different types of BioDrain geocomposites: BioDrain HP and BioDrain
LP, where HP and LP represent high permittivity woven geotextile and low permittivity woven
geotextile, respectively. With the various choices of woven geotextile permittivity as well as
apparent opening size and cross-plane flow rate, engineers shall have more flexibility in selecting
the right BioDrain product to avoid fabric clogging caused by site-specific soil fines or
suspended solid particles within leachate/slurry. Furthermore, the relatively low specific surface
area of woven filament/fibers shall also reduce the potential clogging of the filter geotextiles
caused by long term chemical precipitations or biofilm growth.
2-9
Figure 2.7. A woven-geonet BioDrain geocomposites being installed at Melissa Landfill, Texas.
Figure 2.8. A photograph of woven-geonet BioDrain geocomposite on McGill Road Landfill,

Michigan.
Due to a lower intrusion into the geonet core, the new BioDrain geocomposite manufactured
with woven geotextiles feature a higher transmissivity than the traditional drainage
geocomposites. However, the lamination process itself is more difficult than with needlepunched
geotextiles. Most specifications typically require a value of around 1 lbs/inch for ply adhesion of
geocomposites.
2-10
The successful use of these new drainage geocomposites will depend on designers working with
manufacturers to select the appropriate products and to write specifications which reflect the
current state of the technology. On the manufacturing side, a significant improvement in the
lamination process has to take place for these products to be accepted for widespread use. The
main challenge is to bond the geotextile to the geonet core in a consistent manner without large
unbonded areas. By following optimum manufacturing procedures and selecting proper woven
geotextiles types, woven-geonet lamination strength of GSE BioDrain geocomposite has been
improved to be in the range of from 0.5 to 1.0 lbs/inch.
2.3 Transmissivity and Modification Factors

The primary function of geonets and geocomposites is to convey or transmit fluid within the
planar direction of a drainage layer. Transmissivity is defined as the flow rate of water
transmitted through a unit width of the product under a specific hydraulic gradient as measured
in a laboratory test. Specifically, the transmissivity of a material is related to the flow rate by the
following equation:
Q
=
(2.1)
iw
where = transmissivity (m3/sec-m); Q = flow rate (m3/sec); w = width (m); and i =
hydraulic gradient (dimensionless).
In Equation 2.1, it should be noted that transmissivity is equal to flow rate per unit width only at
a gradient of 1. At gradients other than 1, either transmissivity or flow rate should be considered
throughout design calculations as well as project specifications.
The transmissivity test is performed according to American Society of Testing and Material
(ASTM) procedure D 4716 using test equipment as illustrated in Figure 2.9. Depending on the
manner in which a test is performed, the resulting data may be either of index type to be used
for quality control and acceptance purposes, or of a performance type suitable for use in
design. For performance tests, the following four test parameters should be selected to represent
actual site conditions as closely as possible: (i) test specimen top and bottom boundary
conditions; (ii) normal stress on the test specimen; (iii) hydraulic gradient at which the test is
performed; and (iv) duration during the test when readings are taken. The test should be run with
the same adjacent materials that will exist in the design condition, be they geomembranes, GCLs,
soils, or other materials. The tests normal stress should be equal to the maximum overburden
pressure the material may experience in the field. The practice of specifying a test pressure
higher than the actual field pressure is overly conservative when following the design
methodology discussed here or in Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) procedure GC8. Any
uncertainties associated with long-term performance under load are accounted for by a factor of
safety for drainage, rather than a higher test pressure.
2-11
Figure 2.9. Transmissivity test equipment.

Performance transmissivity tests should be conducted at a gradient equal sin, where is equal
to the slope angle of the geonet or geocomposite with the horizontal. It is unconservative to test
at a gradient lower than the design condition. Conversely, it is conservative to test at a higher
gradient, albeit the project owner pays for this erring on the side of caution. Note that
transmissivity is related inversely to gradient because the flow regime with water in a
geocomposite is typically turbulent. If laminar flow existed (as may occur at very low gradients
or with gases), then the transmissivity would be independent of gradient. It becomes increasingly
challenging to ensure the accuracy of transmissivity measurements when gradients become less
than about 0.1. With experienced technicians and recently developed transmissivity units that
incorporate accurate head-measuring devices, it is possible to measure transmissivity at gradients
as low as 0.02 with a reasonable degree of accuracy. An alternate procedure (which the authors
recommend) requires performing transmissivity at several higher gradients, say 0.1, 0.25, 0.5,
and 1 so as to develop an empirical relationship between transmissivity and gradient. The
relationship between transmissivity and gradient is usually expressed in the following formula:
= a.i n
(2.2)
where = transmissivity (m2/sec); a = constant (dimensionless); i = gradient (dimensionless);

and n = constant (dimensionless).
Equation 2.2 has been verified by performing a number of tests on various materials under
different test conditions. Constants a and n depend on the type of geonet or geocomposite,
boundary conditions, normal stress, and test duration. For example, the two curves in Figure 2.10
were generated by performing the test at gradients of 0.1, 0.25 and 1.0 on a 200 mil thick geonet
sandwiched between two HDPE geomembranes. The 100-hour transmissivity test curve at 1,000
psf pressure can be represented by the above empirical relationship with a = 0.001 and n = -0.5.
For the same product, the curve at 10,000 psf has a and n values equal to 0.0003 and -0.32,
respectively. The calculated transmissivity at a gradient of 0.02 is equal to 7x10-3 m2/sec for the
2-12
1,000 psf curve and 1x10-3 m2/sec for the 10,000 psf curve. To calculate transmissivity at
gradients lower than 0.1, the actual material to be used for a project must be tested under sitespecific stress and boundary conditions in order to develop the relationship between gradient and
transmissivity.
Figure 2.10. Illustration of the empirical relationship between gradient and transmissivity.
The significance of test duration and boundary conditions for geonet and geocomposite
performance transmissivity cannot be overemphasized. Figure 2.11 illustrates the typical
influence of test duration on the transmissivity of geonets and geocomposites. As shown in this
figure, initially there is a rapid decrease in transmissivity, which is attributed to the compression
of the geonet and intrusion of the geotextile into the geonet caused by overburden pressure.
However, within 100 hours (and usually much sooner than that) the further decrease in
transmissivity with respect to time is reduced to almost an insignificant value, indicating that
much of the short-term adjustment in transmissivity has already taken place. The transmissivity
value recorded at the moment where 100 hours have passed--referred to as 100--is used for the
purpose of design as recommended in GRI procedure GC8. Typical values of 100 for selected
geonets and geocomposites are presented in Appendix A. Regardless of whether bi- or tri-planar
products are used designers should contact manufacturers for the most up-to-date information on
transmissivity, as products can change over time. Also, verification testing should ultimately be
used to determine a given products ability to meet design specifications.
From 100 hours to the end of product service life-typically around 30 to 50 years, additional
decreases in transmissivity can occur. Thus, the value obtained from a 100-hour test must be
modified (i.e., reduced further) to make it applicable to a given products complete design life.
Additional details of this modification can be found in GRI procedure GC8 which states that, in
2-13
the absence of site-specific information, 100-hour transmissivity value can be modified to

calculate allowable transmissivity as follows:
allow =
100
RFCR . RFCC . RFBC
(2.3)
where allow = allowable transmissivity (m2/sec); 100 = 100-hour transmissivity from a test
(m2/sec); RFCR = reduction factor for creep (dimensionless); RFCC = reduction factor for
chemical clogging (dimensionless); and RFBC = reduction factor for biological clogging
(dimensionless).
The transmissivity value from Equation 2.3 should then be compared to the required or design
value to arrive at a global transmissivity factor of safety. This global factor of safety takes into
account unknowns associated with variations in liquid inflow to the geocomposite, fine-grained
soil that may pass into the geocomposite during or after construction, additional geotextile
intrusion that may occur during construction or long-term deformation of the geotextiles, and
other variables not directly accounted for by the partial factors of safety.
Figure 2.11. Effect of time on transmissivity of geonets and geocomposites.
2.4 Hydraulic Conductivity of Geonets and Geocomposites

It is not uncommon for design or regulatory requirements for lateral drainage layers to be
formulated in terms of hydraulic conductivity. In order to evaluate geocomposite products in
terms of such requirements, the transmissivity value, as discussed in the previous section, must
be converted to hydraulic conductivity. Transmissivity is related to hydraulic conductivity
through thickness (t) of a layer. Specifically:
=kt
(2.4)
2-14
where = transmissivity (m2/sec); k = hydraulic conductivity along the length of product

(m/sec); and t = thickness (m).
The thickness-dependent relationship between hydraulic conductivity and transmissivity is made
complicated by the visco-elastic nature of geosynthetic drainage layers. The thickness of
geosynthetic drainage layers at a constant normal stress decreases with time due to the
phenomenon of creep. The long-term allowable value of hydraulic conductivity can be defined
as follows:
kallow =
allow
t LT
(2.5)
where kallow = allowable hydraulic conductivity of a drainage layer (m/sec); and tLT = longterm thickness of drainage layer (m).
The allowable value of transmissivity for use in Equation 2.5 can be obtained from Equation 2.3.
Long-term thickness, tLT, depends on the type of the material as well as the stress. For biplanar
geonets and geocomposites, the relationship between thickness and time is provided in Appendix
B. The following relationship can be used for calculating tLT:
t.x
(2.6)
100
where t = original thickness of geonet or geocomposite (m); and x = percentage thickness
retained, from Appendix B.
t LT =
2.5 Granular Materials vs. Geocomposites for Drainage Applications

There are a number of obvious advantages in using geocomposites rather than granular materials
in landfill applications. These include: (i) reduced volume of the drainage medium, which results
in increased airspace; (ii) potentially greater availability and lower costs; (iii) improved
consistency in material properties; (iv) reduced head on underlying liner due to decreased
thickness; and (v) simplified and more protective installation techniques. These advantages have
made the use of geonets and geocomposites a fairly common practice in landfill applications as
well as other civil engineering applications. Although the two systems are similar in function,
designers should be aware that the differences between geocomposites and granular materials
must be explicitly accounted for in the design, so that equivalent drainage media can be
compared, as will be discussed below.
The flow capacity of both geocomposite and granular materials is controlled by the hydraulic
transmissivity of the drainage media. A common error in the replacement of a granular material
with a geocomposite, however, is to supposedly demonstrate equivalency based on equal
transmissivity values alone. Giroud et. al. [2000b] has shown that this practice is incorrect and
may result in an un-conservative design. A granular drainage medium has a larger unconfined
flow capacity than a geonet or geocomposite exhibiting a comparable transmissivity. The reason
for this is that under unconfined flow condition - which is the typical required design condition the greater thickness of the granular drainage media allows a greater maximum head buildup in
the layer. The result is an increase in the effective gradient action on the fluid near the toe of the
2-15
drainage layer, and a corresponding increase in unconfined flow capacity, as compared to

geocomposites. For a thinner layer, such as a geocomposite, to provide an unconfined flow
capacity equivalent to that of a granular material, the transmissivity of the granular material must
be multiplied by the equivalence factor E, specifically:
geocomposite = E x granular
(2.7)
where geocomposite = transmissivity of the geocomposites (m2/sec); granular = transmissivity

of the system using granular material (m2/sec); and E = equivalence factor.
For granular materials having a maximum flow depth of 30 cm (1 ft), E is approximated as
shown below [Giroud, et al., 2000b]:
1 1 cos
1 +
88 88L tan
(2.8)
where L = drainage length (m); = slope angle (degrees); and E = transmissivity equivalence
factor.
Table 2.2 provides values of E for a range of drainage lengths, L, and slope angles, . Notice
that the equivalency value increases as the slope flattens and the drainage length is shortened,
implying that the hydraulic transmissivity of the geocomposite must be increased, as compared
to a system that includes granular materials.
The comparison between a granular and geosynthetic drainage layer is not considered in routine
design calculations, as will be illustrated in Chapter 4. The discussion in this section is relevant
only when different types of drainage layers need to be compared. In certain design cases, as
when the regulatory approval is to be required for an alternate geosynthetic drainage layer, this
method provides a very useful tool for demonstrating equivalency of various alternatives.
Table 2.2 Values of equivalency factor, E, for a range of and L compared to a prescribed
granular drainage layer thickness of 0.3 m (1 ft.), [after Giroud, et. al., 2000b].
Length
Slope of the liquid collection layer, tan
of the
liquid
collection
layer, L,
m (ft)
15 (50)
30 (100)
45 (150)
60 (200)
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.1
1/4
1/3
2.43
1.78
1.57
1.46
2
1.57
1.42
1.35
1.78
1.46
1.35
1.30
1.65
1.39
1.31
1.27
1.39
1.26
1.22
1.20
1.24
1.19
1.17
1.16
1.21
1.17
1.16
1.15
1.18
1.16
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.15
1.14
1.14
2-16
2.6 Geotextile Permittivity and Apparent Opening Size

For drainage application, transmissivity (and the related hydraulic conductivity) are of primary
importance. For drainage geocomposites, the geotextile material also plays an important role in
providing filtration function. This section will address the role of geotextiles in geocomposite
drainage materials.
ASTM procedure D 4491 defines geotextile permittivity as the volumetric flow rate of water
per unit cross sectional area per unit head under laminar flow conditions, in the normal direction
through a geotextile. Geotextile manufacturers generally report permittivity values for products
at a head loss of 2 inches (50 mm). Figure 2.12 plots this permittivity value for a number of
nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles from six different manufacturers in the U.S. The data were
obtained from a report published by American Association of State Highway Officials
(AASHTOs) National Transport Product Evaluation Program (NTPEP). The figure shows that
permittivity varies approximately inversely with mass per unit area of the geotextiles. The scatter
in the data is characteristic of the variability in the test, as well as of differences among various
manufactured products. Designers rely primarily on the hydraulic conductivity of the geotextile,
which is related to permittivity as follows:
k
=
(2.9)
t
where = permittivity of the geotextile (sec-1); k = hydraulic conductivity of the geotextile
(m/sec); and t = thickness of the geotextile component of the geocomposite (m).
Figure 2.12. Relationship between mass per unit area and permittivity for nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles manufactured in the US [data from AASHTO NTPEP publication,
2003].
2-17
As with Equation 2.4 for transmissivity, the use of Equation 2.9 is complicated by the effect of
stress and time on the thickness and, therefore, permittivity. The thickness of nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles decreases exponentially with increasing stress, as illustrated in Figure
2.13. Kothari and Das [1992] have shown that the relationship between pressure and thickness of
a nonwoven needlepunched geotextile can be represented by Equation 2.10.
P
t
= 1 log e
to
Po
(2.10)
where t = thickness at desired pressure (cm); to = thickness at 2 kPa reference pressure (cm);
P = desired pressure (kPa); and Po = reference pressure of 2 kPa; and = constant.
Thickness, to, at a pressure of 2 kPa can be obtained from geotextile specifications published by
manufacturers. Kothari and Das [1992] have shown that the constant, , ranges from 0.12 to 0.18
for nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles. For practical purposes, an average value of 0.15 can be
used in Equation 2.10.
Due to their fibrous structure, nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles experience most of the
compression during the loading process. Nevertheless, compression creep of geotextiles,
although important, is routinely ignored in calculations related to hydraulic conductivity.
Geotextile selection is typically governed by apparent opening size (AOS), since geotextile
hydraulic conductivity is usually much higher than that of the surrounding soils.
Figure 2.13. Relationship between pressure and thickness of nonwoven needlepunched

geotextiles [from Kothari and Das, 1992].
2-18
Apparent opening size (AOS), also called O95, is defined by ASTM procedure D 4751 as a
property that indicates the approximate largest particle that would effectively pass through the
geotextile. In general, the larger-sized particles must be retained so as to allow development of
a soil filter upstream of the geotextile. The AOS of commercially available nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles used in civil and environmental applications depends primarily on the
mass per unit area. Figure 2.14 presents AOS data for nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles from
AASHTOs NTPEP report [2003]. The scatter in the data represents the significant variability
inherent in the test itself as well as differences among products. Designers should utilize the
smallest mass per unit area geotextile that meets the particle retention requirements.
When designing geotextile filters on geocomposites, it is usually important that the design favor
retention rather than flow, as the available pore space within geonets is substantially less than in
granular drainage layers, and in this case the geocomposites are less likely to tolerate the
accumulation of fine soil particles without impacting transmissivity.
An overwhelming majority of drainage geocomposites utilize 6 or 8 oz./square yard (200 to 270
g/m2) geotextiles. The AOS of these geotextiles is typically around 0.15 to 0.2 mm, as can be
seen from Figure 2.13. It is not uncommon to see the use of geotextiles with a mass of up to 16
oz./yard2 (540 g/m2) when a lower AOS is required. The lower limit of geotextiles used for
geonet drainage geocomposites is most often about 6 oz./yard2, since geotextiles with an even
lower mass become increasingly difficult to laminate. Also, the geotextile typically used on the
side facing a geomembrane is about 6 to 8 oz./yard2.
Figure 2.14. Relationship between apparent opening size and mass per unit area of nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles [source of data: NTPEP 2003 Report].
2-19
2.7 Geotextile Survivability

Along with AOS and hydraulic conductivity, survivability is another important design
consideration for geotextiles. Survivability refers to a geotextiles ability to withstand
construction conditions anticipated in the field. In other words, survivability refers to a
geotextiles loss of strength during installation due to wear and tear or construction damage. In
the case of nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles, survivability depends primarily on mass per
unit area. Survivability increases exponentially with increasing mass per unit area in any given
installation conditions.
Geotextile survivability is often specified as Class I, Class II or Class III in accordance with
AASHTO M288 specification. These classes are based on geotextile strength, which for
nonwoven needlepunched geotextiles is dependent on mass per unit area. While this is a
convenient and helpful specification, it represents only the survivability of a geotextile on its
own. When used as an integral part of a geocomposite, the AASHTO specification would
represent a very conservative estimate of the geotextiles survivability.
2.8 Geotextile, Geonet and Geocomposite Porosity

Certain design calculations require a value for the porosity of geosynthetic filter and drainage
materials. Giroud and Perfetti [1977] show that the porosity of geotextiles, geonets or
geocomposites can be calculated as:
(2.11)
n = 1
.t
where n = porosity (dimensionless); = mass per unit area (g/cm2); = density of the
polymeric compound (g/cm3); and t = thickness of geosynthetic material (cm).
Since the density of high density polyethylene and polypropylene (the most common polymers in
geosynthetics) is approximately constant around 0.94 and 0.91 grams/cm3 respectively, the
porosity of geosynthetic materials depends primarily on their thickness and mass per unit area.
The lower the /t ratio, the higher the geosynthetic porosity. As geosynthetic materials are viscoelastic in nature, their thickness depends on both stress and time. This is particularly true for
geonets and geocomposites, whose thickness at the end of their design life may be much lower
than that during construction. When calculating porosity for the purpose of design, the designer
may consider values for the thickness of geonets and geocomposites as presented in Appendix B.
2.9 Geonet and Geocomposite Interface Shear Strength

Geonets and geocomposites are installed in conjunction with other geosynthetic materials and
soils to form layered systems as part of an overall liner system. There are typically several
different materials and interfaces, each of which must have sufficient shear strength to meet the
minimum design factor of safety against sliding. The interface(s) with the weakest peak shear
strength will control the maximum slope length and height at which a landfill liner or cover
system can be built, and can therefore have significant implications on the overall design of a
landfill project. The geosynthetic literature includes a number of detailed articles addressing
various aspects of testing to evaluate shear strengths of materials and their interfaces. Direct
2-20
shear testing is typically performed for geosynthetic interfaces in accordance with ASTM
D5321. Properly specifying and requesting an interface test requires knowledge and experience.
Testing variables include normal loads, hydration sequence, consolidation, testing speed,
substrate conditions, surface gripping, end-clamping conditions, and considerations for floating
interfaces. The designer should have the interface shear testing performed by an experienced
laboratory using the materials under consideration for a particular project. GRI Report No. 30
(Koerner & Narejo, 2005) provides interface shear strength data for all interfaces that may be
encountered involving geonets and geocomposites.
With specific reference to information presented in GRI Report #30, the reader is cautioned
regarding the use of these typical values for detailed design. There are often significant
differences that can be attributed to test and material variability even when evaluating materials
from a single manufacturer. For this reason, it is recommended that these results only be used for
preliminary design and possibly to assume likely lower end estimates of interface strength. For
detailed design, it is advisable that the designer consider the actual materials used during
construction under potential critical field loading conditions.
2.10 Ply-Adhesion or Peel Strength of Geocomposites

A property of drainage geocomposites closely related to the earlier discussion of interface shear
strength and transmissivity is the ply-adhesion or peel strength between the geotextile and geonet
components. The only methodology currently used by the industry to measure peel strength is
ply-adhesion test as per ASTM procedure D 413, ASTM F904 or ASTM D7005. These three
procedures differ in specimen size, test speed, and interpretation of data. Results from tests
conducted in accordance with these methods are not equivalent and the designer should specify
only one of these procedures. In the absence of experience by the designer, the authors
recommend that ASTM D7005 be adopted, as it uses a larger specimen size.
Ply-adhesion strength test is an index method irrespective of the test procedure used to conduct
the test. Although higher ply-adhesion strength means stronger bonding between the geonet and
the geotextile, the test does not provide a measure of performance on which design calculations
can be reasonably based. The bonding should be at least enough to prevent a weak interface
between the geotextile and the geonet. During an interface shear test between the geocomposite
and the overlying or underlying material, the failure surface should be above or below the
geocomposite not within it. Prior experience has shown that the ply-adhesion strength (as
measured according to ASTM D7005) should be at least 1 lb/inch, as this would ensure adequate
bonding between the geotextile and the geonet for most applications. Even so, designers should
consider that progressive delamination could occur under aggressive construction conditions
with cyclic loads (e.g. repetitive acceleration and deceleration of a dozer spreading a thin lift of
soil over a geocomposite on a slope). Such a scenario can be avoided by following proper design
and installation procedures.
While minimum ply-adhesion strength is recommended, problems may occur if the strength is
excessive. A good quality drainage geocomposite is not bonded too aggressively and does not
include large un-bonded areas. Aggressive bonding can be visually detected by deformation and
crushing of the geonet accompanied by very high values of ply-adhesion strength (typically
greater than 5 lbs/inch). The opposite extreme of inadequate or poor quality bonding is indicated
by large and/or continuous un-bonded areas in the machine or cross-direction. Small (less than a
2-21
few inches) localized, random and isolated patches of un-bonded product are acceptable. The
Construction Quality Assurance firm should verify that large un-bonded areas are not present by
conducting walk-through inspections of the installed geocomposite.
2.11 Construction Quality Assurance (CQA) Program for Geocomposites

General requirements of a CQA program include the following:
Product quality assurance verification testing to verify that materials are in compliance
with the technical specifications.
Construction monitoring and documentation to verify that geocomposite installation is in
compliance with the technical specifications and that construction is executed correctly
using industry standard construction methods and the proper materials.
Review and approval of product submittals to ensure that geocomposite materials are in
compliance with the technical specifications.
CQA documentation consisting of daily summary reports, CQA field logs, testing forms,
installation logs, document control binders, material control logs, testing reports,
photographic documentation, technical revisions, design modifications, and record
drawings.
Preparation of a final certification report documenting that the CQA program
implemented during construction was completed in compliance with the contract
documents and the design intent.
The design engineer typically prepares a CQA manual as a guidance document for verification
procedures to be implemented during construction. The manual details general and specific
requirements of the CQA program to verify and document that construction is in compliance
with the contract documents and the design intent.
Material and performance submittals should be reviewed by the CQA organization for
compliance with the technical specifications. For geocomposite materials this may include a
review of the following:
Samples
Product data sheets
Description of the geocomposite that meets or exceeds the specification requirements
Manufacturers quality control testing reports
Review of contractor product verification testing reports
2.11.1 Product Quality Assurance Verification Testing

Products and material sources are often sampled and laboratory tested to verify compliance with
the technical specifications. All material samples are recorded into appropriate Master Testing
Control Logs, assigned sample numbers, and processed for either on-site or off-site testing by the
CQA organization. The Master Testing Control Logs document; 1) sample numbers, 2) product
or material types, 3) required testing, 4) sampling locations and dates, 5) testing personnel or
organization, 6) testing completion dates, and 7) a brief summary of the testing results.
2-22
For geocomposite materials, common product quality assurance verification testing includes the
following:
Drainage net thickness (ASTM D5199)

Drainage net density (ASTM D 1505)
Drainage net tensile strength (ASTM D5035)
Drainage net carbon black content (ASTM D1603)
Geotextile mass per unit area (ASTM D5261)
Geotextile grab strength and elongation (ASTM D 4632)
Geotextile puncture (ASTM D4833)
Geotextile apparent opening size (ASTM D4751)
Geotextile permittivity (ASTM D4491)
Geocomposite ply adhesion (ASTM D7005)
Index transmissivity test (ASTM D4716) for geocomposite as per manufacturers
specifications and test conditions
Performance transmissivity (ASTM D4716) (a 100-hr performance transmissivity test at
appropriate gradient, appropriate normal load, and appropriate boundary conditions with
site-specific soils should be run once for each project)
The test frequency can range from one test per 50,000 to one test per 540,000 square feet, or as
little as one test per material lot, or one test per project, depending on the nature of the test as
outlined in Table 2.3. Quality assurance verification testing results are documented in the final
construction certification report.
The CQA manual establishes testing requirements and frequencies for product verification
testing. Table 2.3 presents typical testing requirements and frequencies for geocomposite
materials. The types of tests and frequencies could be modified wherever appropriate for a given
project.
2.11.2 Construction Monitoring

Geocomposite installation should be monitored and documented to verify compliance with the
technical specifications. In general the following elements of construction should be verified:
Inspect and inventory geocomposite rolls delivered to the site. Document roll numbers,
and the receipt and approval of all quality control testing reports as required by the
technical specifications.
Verify that the rolls are properly handled and stored to avoid damage to the core, outer
wrap, and that the materials stay clean and dry.
Verify that the subgrade is completed and acceptable for geocomposite installation.
Verify geocomposite material is deployed with the machine direction oriented down the
slope. Exceptions should be approved by the engineer.
If the geotextiles on either side are not the same, verify that the geocomposite is properly
oriented with the correct side facing up.
2-23
If material is being deployed over textured geomembrane, verify that a slip sheet or
another method is used to avoid snagging fibers. Likewise, if textured geomembrane is
deployed over geocomposite, verify that a slip sheet is used to avoid snagging fibers.
Inspect deployed rolls to verify there are no excessively large areas of geocomposite
delamination. Report large areas of delamination to the engineer for a determination on
acceptability.
Verify that the geocomposite is installed in the areas shown on the construction drawings,
and that discharge locations are clean and free to discharge according to the design.
Verify that definitive measures are taken to prevent soil material from entering edges of
the geocomposite and clogging the core.
If the site is prone to frequent winds and dusty conditions, verify that measures are taken
to protect the geocomposite from dust infiltration into geonet core. For example, early
covering of the geonet with the next layer may need to be specified.
If geocomposite is exposed to storm-water runoff during construction, verify that soil
contamination of geonet core does not occur.
Verify proper side- and end-seaming of panels. Side edges should normally have the
geonet cores be overlapped approximately 2-4 inches and tied every 5 feet with plastic
ties. End seams are normally overlapped 12 inches and must have net-to-net contact,
which usually requires peeling back the geotextiles. End seams should have ties in the
geonet cores every 2 feet.
If the geocomposites are being placed over soils where liquids may come up from below,
verify that bottom geotextile components overlap a minimum of 4 inches.
Verify that upper geotextile components are sewn together in a prayer seam unless
otherwise specified. An alternative procedure of heat-seaming can be used if approved by
the site engineer.
Verify that repairs are made to holes and tears.
Table 2.3 Typical geocomposite material conformance testing.
Material
Geocomposite
drainage geonet
component (core)
Geocomposite
geotextile
component(s)
Required
Testing
Thickness (ASTM D 5199)
Suggested Testing
Frequency
one test per 50,000 ft2
Density (ASTM D 1505)
Tensile strength (ASTM D 5035)
Carbon black content (ASTM D 1603)
Mass per unit area (ASTM D 5261)
Grab tensile strength (ASTM D 4632)
Grab elongation (ASTM D 4632)
Puncture (ASTM D 4833)
Apparent Opening Size (ASTM D 4751)
2-24
Material
Required
Testing
Permittivity (ASTM D4491)
Suggested Testing
Frequency
Ply adhesion (ASTM D7005)
Index transmissivity per manufacturers

published specifications (ASTM D 4761)
one test per 540,000 ft2, or

one test per lot
Geocomposite
entire product
Performance transmissivity (performance one test per project

test with 100-hr seating, and at
appropriate gradient, normal load, and
boundary conditions with site-specific
soils) ASTM D4716
Interface shear strength (performance test one test per project
with appropriate boundary conditions,
normal load, hydration, shear speed, and
gripping conditions) ASTM D5321
Note: Change test frequency as necessary for a particular project.
2-25
Chapter 3 Typical Landfill Applications
CHAPTER 3
TYPICAL LANDFILL APPLICATIONS
3.1 Introduction
Synthetic or natural drainage materials are utilized in the following four areas of a modern
landfill: (i) cover drainage layer; (ii) gas removal and seep collection layer; (iii) primary leachate
collection and removal layer; and (iv) secondary leakage detection and removal layer. Figure 3.1
shows the cross-section of a closed landfill with each of the above four drainage layers
identified. The choice of a geonet, a single-sided geocomposite, or a double-sided geocomposite
is determined by the specific application, as well as by slope stability considerations.
Geomembrane-geonet interface shear strength is one of the lowest, whether the geomembrane is
smooth or textured. The same is true of a smooth geomembrane placed against a drainage
geocomposite. The designer should compare the slope angles on a project with material interface
shear strength data to determine if a geonet or single-sided geocomposite provides adequate
shear strength, or if a double-sided geocomposite against a textured polyethylene geomembrane
is needed. While desirable in terms of interface shear strength characteristics, double-sided
geocomposites possess much lower transmissivity than comparable geonets or single-sided
geocomposites because of the intrusion of the geotextile into the geonet core.
Figure 3.1. Cross-section of a landfill liner and cover system showing the application of geonets
and geocomposites [Koerner, 1998].
3-1
3.2 Final Cover Drainage

The primary purpose of the geocomposite in a final cover system is to provide lateral
conveyance of water that infiltrates the cover soil. The goal of the geocomposite is to reduce the
water head in the cover soil that is placed on the cover barrier layer, which is most typically a
geomembrane, or occasionally a GCL or clay layer. Removal of water from the barrier layer
surface is important in order to ensure veneer slope stability. Notice that when a geocomposite is
used, it is typically placed beneath approximately two or more feet of protective soil and is
placed directly above the barrier layer (e.g., directly on top of a geomembrane). Insufficient flow
capacity of the geocomposite can result in head buildup in the protective soil, which can cause a
decrease in the effective stresses above the barrier layer. The key factor in establishing whether
the geocomposite exhibits sufficient flow capacity (and thus adequate veneer stability) is the
selection of the appropriate design storm event. The input parameters for analysis should be
selected to meet or exceed local, state, and federal regulations (at a minimum) and should be
consistently applied to all elements of the design. Slope stability methods are used to compute
the factor of safety against sliding based on the assumed performance of the under-drain layer.
3.3 Landfill Gas and Side Slope Seep Collection

Shortly after waste placement commences, landfill gas (LFG) is generated as the waste
decomposes and converts the organic matter within the waste into methane and other gases.
During normal landfilling operations, the generated gas emits from the landfill surface and vents
into the atmosphere. When the landfill reaches final design grades and waste placement is
completed, closure activities commence but LFG generation does not cease. Landfill closure
usually includes the placement of a low-permeability cover, commonly including a barrier layer
such as geomembrane. Left uncontrolled, the LFG will migrate to the underside of the cover and
cause an increase in pressure below the cover system. This pressure results in a decrease in the
effective stress beneath the final cover geomembrane that can ultimately lead to a slope stability
failure. Furthermore, inadequate gas venting immediately below new cover systems on old
landfills has been identified as the cause of sudden increases in groundwater monitoring volatile
organic compound (VOC) inputs, because the LFG is being constrained to migrate downward.
The primary purpose of the geocomposite in a landfill gas collection system is to provide flow
capacity to maintain the landfill gas pressure within the geocomposite at an acceptable level,
such that the computed factor of safety against slope stability failure is acceptable, and gas
collection out of the top of the landfill is facilitated, reducing the potential for downward
pressure gradients of VOCs.
A complementary function served by the gas venting layer is the collection of side slope seeps.
This can be especially relevant for landfills in high-precipitation areas or bioreactor landfills
where liquid is added to the waste or where daily cover layers are not periodically removed or
breached to promote vertical percolation of liquids. Uncontrolled lateral seepage may be
manifested in distressed vegetation, unsightly wet zones, on the landfill side slopes, local slope
instabilities, the release of leachate and an increase in odor. Although it may be possible to
design a drainage layer explicitly for these seeps, the authors have found that adequate seep
collection capacity is provided even in situations where seeps are a chronic problem, as long as
drainage composite is designed to facilitate gas collection.
3-2
3.4 Leachate Collection and Removal System

The primary purpose of the geocomposite in a leachate collection system (LCS) is to provide the
in-plane transmission of leachate that impinges the geocomposite after permeating through the
overlying waste and protective soil cover. The function of the LCS is to provide conveyance of
leachate while controlling the head on the underlying geomembrane. Since the geocomposite is
commonly designed to convey flow in an unconfined condition (i.e., the liquids are completely
maintained within the composite), the buildup of head is negligible, and easily satisfies landfill
regulations that require less than one-foot of head to be maintained. Because the geocomposite
is usually placed directly on the primary geomembrane liner, the result is a potentially critical
shear interface between the geotextile and geomembrane. That is the reason why the stability of
landfill slopes during all phases of a landfill operation must be explicitly evaluated.
3.5 Leakage Detection System

The primary purpose of the geocomposite (or geonet) in a leakage detection system (LDS, also
commonly referred to as secondary leachate collection and removal system) is to provide
lateral conveyance of collected liquids from within the LDS, to prevent the buildup of head on
the secondary liner. The design flow rate in the LDS geocomposite is typically small relative to
that in LCS. However, an additional requirement for an LDS that sometimes impacts/determines
the design is the need for rapid detection when the action leakage rate (ALR) has been
exceeded. Regulations may require that the ALR be detected in a relatively short time period
(typically less than one week, but sometimes as short as one day). To satisfy this requirement,
the design must consider the flow of the liquid within the LDS geocomposite, from the furthest
point in the landfill cell to the sump where measurement of the flow takes place.
3-3
The GSE Drainage Design Manual , Second Edition
Chapter 4 Design Methods And Concepts
CHAPTER 4
DESIGN METHODS AND CONCEPTS
4.1 Introduction
The design of a drainage layer involves the calculation of percolation rate (or impingement
rate) which forms the basis of required transmissivity. Percolation rate, in turn, is a function
of site topography, storm characteristics, soil type, vegetation cover and overlying soil or waste
depth. The allowable transmissivity discussed in Chapter 2 (as well as latter in this chapter)
and the required transmissivity covered in detail in this chapter form the basis for hydraulic
design of drainage layers for landfills. The designer may decide to keep the complete liquid flow
within the drainage layer or allow the head to exceed the thickness and then calculate a factor of
safety against slope instability. All these concepts are discussed in this chapter. The designer is
provided with a complete picture by providing several design options.
A drainage layer, while meeting hydraulic requirements, may nonetheless be unsuitable for a
particular project due to its inadequate structural strength. The structural capacity calculations of
the geonets forms an integral part of the design procedures. A methodology for ensuring that a
geonet is capable of withstanding project overburden stress throughout the design life is
presented in this chapter. Calculations related to the strength of geonets are to be performed in
parallel with the calculations related to transmissivity in order to develop complete specifications
for a project.
Chapter 5 provides flow charts summarizing the information presented in this chapter. The
reader may find it useful to review the information presented in this chapter at least once and
then use Chapter 5 for routine design calculations. The flow charts cover procedures for both
hydraulic and structural design of geonets and geocomposites.
4.2 Percolation Rate and Required Transmissivity

Percolation and impingement refer to the flow of fluid (e.g., water, leachate, gas) into a drainage
layer from above or from below. The percolation inflow rate assumed in the design has direct
implications on the drainage capacity requirements, and ultimately the cost, of the drainage layer.
It is generally prudent to minimize the infiltration of liquid into the drainage layer by such
measures as the use of a lower-permeability cover soil, shorter slope lengths, steeper slope
angles, etc. Operational controls, such as diverting the incoming flow away from the drainage
layer by the use of temporary and permanent grading and other diversion structures, can also
play a significant role in reducing the required capacity of the drainage layer. Site topography,
soil type, precipitation for the site and engineering design features influence the amount of
impingement (i.e., percolation) into the drainage composite. These parameters and control
features often change during the various stages of landfill development thus requiring that the
designer be educated about the potential changes and their impact on inflow into the drainage
layer.
4-1
4.2.1 Final Cover Drainage Layer

The final cover geocomposite is relatively close to the surface of the landfill, and is therefore
directly affected by short-term inputs from precipitation. The geocomposite is typically overlain
by approximately 2-ft (0.6 m) of protective and vegetative soil. The properties of this soil layer
can significantly influence how much precipitation impinges on the drainage layer.
Thiel and Stewart [1993] describe a relatively simple and conservative method of estimating the
amount of liquid that may percolate into the drainage layer. Their approach has since been
labeled the unit gradient method. The basis for this method is that for the critical condition it
can be assumed that the cover soil is saturated, and water from continued rains will percolate
vertically through the cover soil. Since the head on top of the cover soil is practically zero (due
to runoff), the gradient through the cover soil is unity. Therefore Darcys law gives the inflow
percolation as (see also Figure 4.1):
Qin = kcover iin A
(4.1)
where Qin = inflow percolation rate (m3/sec); iin = inflow gradient = 1; and A = area (m2).
If we examine a unit width of the cover slope, the area would be equal to the slope length (or
distance between drainage outlets), L, times the unit width. Therefore,
Qin = kcover L
(4.2)
Figure 4.1. Disposition of precipitation in a typical final cover system.
4-2
If we desire that all flow that infiltrates down to the drainage geocomposite is carried entirely by
the geocomposite (i.e., head above the geomembrane is less than or equal to thickness of the
geocomposite), then the limiting flow condition at the downstream end of the geocomposite (per
unit width) would be:
Qout = req iout
(4.3)
where Qout = the flow rate coming out of the drainage geocomposite (m3/sec-m); req is the
transmissivity of the geocomposite (m3/sec-m); and iout = the gradient of the flow within
geocomposite = sin , where = the slope angle.
By establishing that Qin = Qout, an equation can be written solving for the required
transmissivity of the geocomposite, as follows:
req =
k cov er . L
sin
(4.4)
Note that Equation 4.4 assumes infiltration rate equal to the permeability of the cover soil. In
certain dry climates this assumption may be considered overly conservative. In such cases an
alternative approach is provided by Soong and Koerner [1997], who describe a method for
the calculation of percolation rate - qi - by estimating rainfall runoff from the cover system.
They suggest that an estimate of the percolation rate into the cover drainage layer can be
obtained according to:
qi = P(1-RC)
(4.5)
where qi = infiltration or percolation rate (m/hr); P = probable maximum precipitation (m/hr);
and RC = runoff coefficient (dimensionless, see Table 4.1).
Table 4.1. Typical run-off coefficients for various surface conditions [Daniel, 1993].
Description of the
Slope of Ground Surface
Runoff Coefficient
Grass-covered Soil
Flat (<2%)
0.05 0.10
Sandy soil
Mild (2 7%)
0.10 0.15
Steep (>7%)
0.15 0.20
Flat (<2%)
0.13 0.17
Clayey soil
Mild (2 7%)
0.18 0.22
Steep (>7%)
0.25 0.35
Required transmissivity (req) can then be calculated by substituting kcover in Equation 4.4
with qi, as follows:
q .L
(4.6)
req = i
sin
However, Thiel and Stewart [1993] suggest that percolation rate into the drainage layer (qi) is
essentially equal to permeability of cover soil (kcover) when P(1-RC)>kcover, i.e.,
4-3
qi = kcover
(4.7)
The authors recommend the use of 25-year or 50-year storm intensity for P in Equation 4.5.
Information
on
storm
intensities
in
the
US
can
be
found
at
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/oh/hdsc/noaaatlas2.htm and http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/pcpnfreq.html.
The values of runoff coefficient, RC, and the permeability, kcover, depend primarily on the type
and condition of the cover soil. Tables 4.1 and 4.2 provide ranges of values for runoff coefficient
and cover soil permeability, respectively. The designer should use this data cautiously, as their
applicability for a particular site may be questionable. Run-off coefficient for a bare slope at the
end of construction may be very different from that for the same slope with a grass cover.
Table 4.2. Permeability of various types of cover soils [HELP Model].
Group
Saturated Hydraulic
Soil Type
Symbol
Conductivity (cm/sec)
SP
Poorly graded clean sands, sand/gravel mix
5.0 10-4 ~ 1.0 10-2
SW
Well graded clean sands, gravelly sands
5.0 10-4 ~ 5.8 10-3
SM
Silty sands, poorly graded sand/silt mix
2.5 10-5 ~ 1.0 10-3
ML
Inorganic silts and clayey silts
5.0 10-6 ~ 1.9 10-4
SC
Clayey sands, poorly graded sand/clay mix
2.5 10-7 ~ 1.2 10-4
CL-ML
Mixture of inorganic silt and clay
2.5 10-7 ~ 1.2 10-4
CL
Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity
5.0 10-8 ~ 4.2 10-5
CH
Inorganic clays of high plasticity
5.0 10-8 ~ 2.5 10-5
Figure 4.2. Typical underdrain outlet at bench.
4-4
Examining equations 4.4 and 4.6, we see that required transmissivity is a function of the inflow
percolation, slope length, and slope angle. The ability to influence the percolation rate and slope
angle may often be somewhat limited due to project constraints. One variable that does enable
the designer to obtain reasonable transmissivity requirements is the slope length. For example, in
a landfill cover veneer system, it is common to not exceed 150 ft (46 m) between underdrain
outlets, which also commonly matches the distance between benches to intercept runoff. A
typical underdrain outlet design for a bench location is presented in Figure 4.2. In the
event that a drainage bench is not available at the location an underdrain outlet is desired, a
simple and cost-effective technique for providing an outlet is to install a pipe backed up by a flap
on the geomembrane that collects the underdrain discharge. This pipe can run subparallel to the
slope contours, say at a 3-5% longitudinal slope, and outlet at a convenient point or into a
downslope header pipe. An example cross section is shown in Figure 4.3.
Figure 4.3. Underdrain outlet on mid-slope.
4.2.2 Landfill Gas Collection Layer

Landfill gases are generated from the biodegradation of solid waste in a landfill. The actual rate
of gas generation depends on waste composition, moisture content, age, etc. The purpose of a gas
collection layer is to facilitate the collection of the generated gases so that they do not cause
uplift of the cap. The typical configuration of a landfill gas collection layer is presented in Figure
4.4. The primary design criterion for geocomposites is to provide enough flow capacity to reduce
the landfill gas pressure to an acceptable level in terms of factor of safety for slope stability, as
illustrated in the following equation:
4-5
u max = cover t cover cos
(FS s cover t cover sin )

tan
(4.8)
where max = allowable gas pressure (kPa); cover = cover soil density (kg/m3), tcover = soil
cover thickness (m); FSs = factor of safety against sliding; and = interface friction angle
(degrees) for geocomposite-geomembrane interface.
The incoming flow rate for landfill gas will be gauged in terms of flux. The equation used to
calculate the landfill gas flux is presented as follows [Thiel, 1998]:
Figure 4.4. Schematic of a landfill gas collection layer.

q g = rg . t waste . waste
(4.9)
where qg = landfill gas supply rate (m/sec); rg = landfill gas generation rate (m3/sec/kg of
waste); twaste = thickness of waste (m); and waste = unit weight of waste (kg/m3).
Allowable gas pressure within drainage geocomposite can be calculated as follows:
max =
qg . g D 2

greq 8
(4.10)
where D = half of slope distance between drains (m); and greq = required transmissivity of
gas drainage layer (m3/sec per m width).
Equation 4.10 can be re-arranged to calculate required transmissivity of gas drainage layer as
follows:
q . D2
greq = g g
(4.11)
max 8
Notice that the above equation provides required transmissivity for the flow of gas, not water.
Transmissivity tests in the laboratory, however, are performed using water as the test fluid. To
4-6
compare the measured performance of drainage layers, the required transmissivity from Equation
4.11 must be converted to an equivalent water transmissivity, or vice versa. This is accomplished
with the help of relationship between transmissivity, viscosity and density as shown in Equation
4.12.
gas water
(4.12)
req = greq
10 . greq
water gas
where req = required hydraulic transmissivity for geonet or geocomposites (m3/sec per m
width); gas = dynamic viscosity of landfill gas (kPa); water = dynamic viscosity of water
(kPa); water = unit weight of water (kg/m3); and gas = unit weight of gas (kg/m3).
Table 4.3 provides density and viscosity values for various fluids for use in Equation 4.12. Again
we note that a very significant side benefit of providing a gas collection layer under the
final cover is that it will also serve to collect sideslope seeps. The seeps would be collected at the
toe of the geocomposite gas collection layer, as illustrated in Figure 4.5.
Table 4.3. Density and viscosity of various fluids [Thiel, 1998].
Figure 4.5. Seep collection at toe of gas collection layer under final cover system.
4-7
4.2.3 Landfill Leachate Collection and Removal System

Leachate impingement into the leachate collection layer is buffered due to relatively large
thickness of overlying waste and soil material making the effect of precipitation much more
uniform and less dependent on short-term (i.e., hourly) events, as compared to the final cover. A
number of computer models and manual methods are available for performing water balance
analysis, including: (i) the Simplified Manual Method [Koerner and Daniel, 1997]; (ii) the HELP
Model [Shroeder, et. al., 1994a, 1994b]; (iii) the LEACHM Model [Hutson and Wagenet, 1992];
(iv) UNSAT-H [Fayer and Jones, 1990]; (v) SoilCover [SoilCover, 2000]; and (vi) HYDRUS-2D
[Simunek et. al. 1999]. A detailed review of each of these water-balance analysis models is
provided in the EPA Guidance Document titled Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final
Covers [2004], which was still in draft form at the time this manual was prepared. We
recommend the use of HELP Model for calculating impingement rate within a leachate
collection layer for the following reasons: (i) relative simplicity when running simulations; (ii)
industry-wide familiarity with the software; (iii) availability of input parameters and internal
database of information; and (iv) reasonably accurate and conservative results.
Figure 4.6 shows a typical cross-section of a landfill leachate collection system. Landfill LCRS
impingement rates depend on the operational stage of a landfill, which can be conveniently
broken down as follows: (i) initial operation stage; (ii) active operation stage; and (iii) postclosure stage. Early in the landfill operation, surface water control may not be well established
and may allow for a relatively large portion of surface water to infiltrate into the LCRS. As
filling progresses, the use of protective soil and improved grading techniques reduce the amount
of infiltration into the waste, thus decreasing the LCRS flow rate. In the post-closure period, the
application of the final cover system greatly reduces the amount of infiltration into the waste,
thus greatly reducing the amount of leachate entering the LCRS.
We recommend breaking the landfill into several operational stages (as few as three and as many
as six) with varying geometry, waste thickness, cover slopes and cover materials. Separate HELP
analyses should be performed for each operational stage modeled. An example of what the
designer might consider when modeling a landfill broken into four stages is presented below:
Figure 4.6. Typical landfill leachate collection and removal system configuration (LCRS).
4-8
Initial Operation Stage Model leachate flow into the LCRS based on a fluff layer of
waste being placed in the landfill cell. A typical waste thickness might be on the order of
10 feet. The slope might be fairly flat (~2%) with a six-inch daily cover layer.
Active Operation Stage I Model leachate flow into the LCRS based on landfill at a
representative point in time in the landfills development phasing plan. The waste
thickness might be on the order of half of the final thickness of the waste. The slope
might be fairly flat, with an intermediate cover and fair vegetation.
Active Operation Stage II Model leachate flow into the LCRS based on the landfill at
final grades with an intermediate cover in place and fair vegetation.
Post-Closure Stage Model leachate flow into the LCRS based on the final closure
conditions. The landfill will be at final grades with a permanent cover in place. Often this
condition is modeled in HELP as simply the amount of infiltration through the final cover
system. Since this value is typically very small when compared to the value at other
stages, a more complex analysis is not needed.
Impingement rate, qi, should be obtained from HELP model for each of the assumed stages
for the landfill. Required transmissivity can then be calculated for the each case as [Giroud
et. al., 2000b]:
q .L
(4.13)
req = i
sin
where req = required transmissivity for geocomposites (m3/sec per m width); qi = liquid
impingement rate (m/sec); L = horizontal length of slope (m); and = slope angle (degrees).
It is generally convenient to prepare a table that presents impingement rate, stress, required
transmissivity and allowable transmissivity for each of the stages. Typically, higher
transmissivity values are required at low stress levels during initial stages of landfill filling
process. As a landfill reaches its closure stage, significantly lower transmissivity is required for
the drainage layer albeit at a higher normal stress. Example calculations are provided in Chapter
6 along with a typical table providing requirements for drainage layer at various landfill stages.
In terms of thickness of the composite, or the maximum depth of leachate in the drainage layer,
Equation 4.13 can be expressed as:
k . tmax =
qi . L
sin
(4.14)
where k = required permeability of the drainage layer (m/sec); and tmax = maximum thickness
of the drainage layer.
4.2.4 Leakage Detection System

The main reason for including an LDS in a landfill is to capture and to laterally convey liquid
entering due to leakage of a primary liner. Figure 4.7 presents a schematic of a leak detection
4-9
system, indicating the primary source of leakage. There can be additional sources of leakage into
the LDS including (i) construction and compression water already present in the LDS;
(ii) consolidation water from the upper compacted clay liner (if a compacted clay liner is
present); (iii) infiltration water from leaks in the lower geomembrane; and (iv) liquid flow from
leakage of pipes penetrating the LDS. This manual considers leakage through the upper liner as
the primary, and only source of liquid in the LDS.
In general, leakage from a hole in a geomembrane depends on: (i) hydraulic head; (ii) the size
and shape of the hole, and (iii) the nature of the media underlying and overlying the primary
liner, as illustrated in Figure 4.7. For a composite liner system typically used in landfills, the
underlying medium is a compacted clay liner or a geosynthetic clay liner. The material overlying
a primary liner is of a permeable nature, such as waste or a drainage medium. For the case of
composite primary liner, the leakage rate can be calculated as [Giroud et. al., 1997]:
Q = C 1 + 0.1(hw / t )0.95 . hw
0.9
. a 0.1 . ks
0.74
(4.15)
where C = contact factor (dimensionless); Q = leakage rate (m3/sec); hw = head of water over
the geomembrane (m); a = area of hole in geomembrane (m2); ks = hydraulic conductivity of
the soil component (m/sec); and t = thickness of soil or GCL (m).
Equation 4.15 is valid only with the units presented above and the given definition of the
variables. Giroud [1997] recommends using a value of 0.21 or 1.15 for contact factor, C, for
good or bad contact, respectively, as described below in general terms:
Figure 4.7. Typical x-section of leak detection system in landfills.
The good contact condition corresponds to a geomembrane, installed with as few

wrinkles as possible, on top of a low-permeability soil layer that has been adequately
compacted and has a smooth surface.
The poor contact condition corresponds to a geomembrane that has been installed with a
certain number of wrinkles, and/or placed on a low permeability soil that has not been
well compacted and does not appear smooth.
Additionally, for the leakage equation to be valid, the hydraulic conductivity of the soil
underlying the geomembrane must be low: generally less than 10-6 cm/s (10-4 m/s). The range
of applicability for the leakage equation is affected by the head and diameter of the assumed
4-10
defect. More discussion can be found in Giroud et al. [1997]. The rate of leakage per unit area
can be calculated by assuming number of defects n over an area A of the overlying liner as
follows:
n .Q
(4.16)
qi =
A
Giroud et al. [1997] provide a numerical technique for estimating the fraction of wetted area
caused by an assumed number of defects in a primary liner. From this an average thickness of
leachate in the wetted areas can be estimated. The design of the geocomposite leak detection
layer can generally be based on the average leachate thickness, especially if the primary liner is a
composite liner. If the maximum theoretical head on the secondary liner directly below a leak in
the primary liner is of concern, then the designer should consult the reference given at the
beginning of this paragraph. In general, the worst-case average thickness of leachate in the leak
detection layer can be estimated as:
FLQt
t avgworst =
(4.17)
sin
where tavg worst = worst-case average head buildup in the leak detection layer (assumes all
leaks originate at the high end of the layer) (m); F = frequency of defects in the primary liner
system (m-2); L = horizontal length of the leak detection layer from high point to low point
(m); Q = steady-state leakage through a defect in the primary liner system (m3/s); t =
thickness of the geocomposite in the leak detection layer; = assumed transmissivity of the
geocomposite in the leak detection layer; and = slope of the leak detection layer.
For this equation to be valid, it is important that the calculated head buildup be less than the
thickness of the geocomposite.
An additional requirement for Leak Detection System (LDS) - and one that sometimes controls
the design - is the need for rapid detection should the leakage rate exceed the action leakage
rate (ALR). Regulations typically require that the ALR be detected relatively quickly (sometimes
within one day). In order to design for this criterion, one must consider the flow of the liquid
within the LDS from the furthest point in the landfill cell to the sump (where measurement of
flow takes place). Figure 4.8 shows the schematics of a typical LDS in a landfill cell, and
explains the concept of a leak detection system. Notice that in addition to computing the travel
time for flow in the leak detection layer, the designer should also consider the travel time within
the leakage detection corridor, as shown below:
Td = Ttd + Ttc
(4.18)
where Td = total leak detection time (sec); Ttd = leakage travel time in the LDS drainage layer
(sec); and Ttc = leakage travel time in the LDS corridor (sec).
From Darcys Law we can compute the flow within a porous medium under steady-state flow
conditions modified to take into account the drainage material porosity, as shown in
Equation 4.19:
4-11
n. L
(4.19)
k .i
where Tt = leakage travel time (sec); n = porosity of the drainage material (-); k =
permeability of the drainage material (m/sec); L = maximum length of drainage path within
the LDS (m); and i = hydraulic gradient (m/m).
Tt =
Figure 4.8 The plan and cross-section of landfill a leak detection system.
Equation 4.19. Represented for the specific condition of the LDS corridor as shown below:
Ttc =
nc . Lc
k c . ic
(4.20)
where nc = porosity of the LDS corridor (dimensionless); Lc = maximum length of drainage

path in the LDS corridor (m); ic = hydraulic gradient of the LDS corridor (m/m); and kc =
permeability of the LDS corridor (m/sec).
The following equation is used to compute the travel time within the LDS drainage layer (in
this case geocomposites) based on transmissivity rather than permeability:
Ttd =
where:
4-12
n d . Ld . t d
d . id
(4.21)
nd = porosity of the LDS drainage geocomposites, see Section 2.8 (dimensionless),

Ld = maximum length of drainage path in LDS drainage geocomposites (m),
td = thickness of the LDS drainage geonet or geocomposites (m),
d = transmissivity of the LDS drainage geonet or geocomposite (m2/sec),
id = hydraulic gradient of the LDS drainage geocomposite (m/m).
Assuming that the leak detection time is known and that the components of LDS corridor are set
in the design, minimum required transmissivity of the geocomposite can be solved by combining
equations 4.18 through 4.21 and solving for d, as shown in Equation 4.22.
req = d =
n d . Ld . t d
n .L
id Td c c
k c . ic
(4.22)
The minimum required transmissivity computed above should be compared with that calculated
based on leakage rate and any minimum regulatory requirements. The required transmissivity of
the leak detection layer should then be based on the largest of the three values.
4.3 Allowable Transmissivity

The allowable transmissivity included in the specifications is the minimum transmissivity that
must be met during testing. The allowable transmissivity is unique for a given stress and
gradient; therefore, the laboratory testing must be performed at the same stress and gradient.
Alternatively, if a higher gradient is used for testing, then allowable transmissivity value at a
lower gradient can be computed based on the empirical relationship presented in Section 2.3,
Equation 2.2. The allowable transmissivity will include an increased value as compared to the
required transmissivity in order to account for: (i) a design factor of safety; and (ii) anticipated
changes due to environmental effects on the in-place geocomposite. The design factor of safety
for drainage is applied to account for uncertainties in the design related to material properties,
weather and other factors that may increase the impingement rate or decrease the flow capacity
of the geocomposite. The application of the factor of safety for drainage results in the allowable
transmissivity as shown below.
allow = req FS D
(4.23)
where:
allow = minimum allowable transmissivity of geocomposite (m2/sec),
req = required transmissivity for a site as explained in Section 4.2 (m2/sec),
FSD = overall factor of safety for drainage (dimensionless) = 2 to 3.
Environmental factors such as biological clogging, chemical clogging and long-term creep of the
geocomposite drainage layer will decrease the in-place capacity of the geocomposite. To account
for these reductions, the allowable transmissivity will be increased further, using reduction
4-13
factors for each component. The magnitude of each reduction factor (which should be equal to or
greater than 1) should reflect a correction that provides a best estimate of the anticipated
reduction. It should not be inflated to a larger value to account for uncertainty, since this has
already been accounted for in the factor of safety (FSD). The allowable transmissivity is shown in
Equation 4.24 below (see also GRI procedure GC8):
allow = req FS D RFCR RFCC RFBC
(4.24)
where:
allow = allowable transmissivity of geocomposites or geonet (m2/sec),
FSD = overall factor of safety for drainage (dimensionless),
RFCR = reduction factor for long-term creep (dimensionless),
RFCC = reduction factor for chemical clogging (dimensionless),
RFBC = reduction factor for biological clogging (dimensionless).
The allowable transmissivity (allow) in Equation 4.24 should be compared with the 100-hour
transmissivity value obtained from a test. The specified 100-hour transmissivity value should be
equal to or higher than the allowable value of transmissivity. Typical 100-hour transmissivity
data for some products is presented in Appendix A. The designer should contact manufacturers
for the most up-to-date information on their products.
In addition to the reduction factors in Equation 4.24, a review of the chemical compatibility of
the resin used in the geonet to the fluid that the geonet will be exposed to, should be performed.
Most geonets are made of HDPE, which is very resistant in most environments where they are
used; therefore, this is seldom an issue. Ultimately, the engineers review should result in a go
no-go determination, in which the designer decides that the material is acceptable for use or not.
If it is deemed acceptable, no reduction in the required transmissivity is applied due to the
chemical degradation associated with chemical compatibility issues.
The allowable transmissivity discussed here should not be confused with the index transmissivity
used for purposes of quality control or conformance testing. The latter is typically performed
between steel plates for 15 minutes at a pressure of 10,000 or 15,000 psf and is completely
unsuitable for the purpose of design. Project specifications can include both performance and
index transmissivity requirements, provided that a clear distinction is made between them.
4.3.1 Drainage Factor of Safety, FSD

The overall drainage factor of safety should be applied to take into account possible uncertainties
in the selection and determination of the design parameters. When selecting an appropriate factor
of safety for drainage, the designer should evaluate the criticality of the project, considering such
factors as: (i) the cost of repair; (ii) the potential for loss of life; (iii) the certainty of the design
parameters; and (iv) the probability of failure. Recommended values of FSD are typically
between 2.0 to 3.0 [Giroud, et al., 2000a], with a larger value resulting in a larger required
geocomposite transmissivity, and therefore, higher cost. The authors of this design manual
believe that lower-end values (i.e., 2.0) are acceptable for most projects, since the performance
4-14
of geosynthetic materials is fairly well established. Narejo & Richardson [2002] propose a value
of 2.0 as an overall factor of safety for drainage.
4.3.2 Chemical Clogging Reduction Factor, RFCC

The chemical clogging reduction factor is intended to account for the clogging of the
geocomposite due to precipitates deposited from high alkalinity soils (typically calcium and
magnesium). The designer should evaluate the soils and waste he/she anticipates being placed on
the drainage system. GRI-GC8 recommends using values in the range of 1.0 to 1.2 for chemical
clogging in the final cover system (see Table 4.4). If the designer finds that high alkalinity soils
or other precipitants are not present, use of the lower value (i.e., 1.0) should be acceptable.
The authors believe that the risk for chemical clogging in the landfill gas collection layer should
be similar to that in the leak detection systems. Water vapor within the landfill gas that is
collected by the landfill gas collection layer will often condense, resulting in liquid which is
referred to as condensate. This condensate often has similar characteristics to landfill leachate;
therefore, the authors recommend using a range similar to the LDS (Leakage Detection System)
range of 1.1 to 1.5, since the layer will have a level of exposure to leachate similar to that of the
LDS. In the absence of available information, the designer is urged to choose a conservative
value (i.e., 1.5).
Table 4.4. Chemical clogging and biological clogging reduction factors [GRI GC8].
Application
Reduction Factor for
Reduction Factor for
Chemical Clogging (RFCC)
Biological Clogging (RFBC)
Cover Drainage Layer
1.0 to 1.2
1.2 to 3.5
Leachate Collection and
1.5 to 2.0
1.1 to 1.3
Removal Layer
Leakage Detection Layer
1.1 to 1.5
1.1 to 1.3
The designer should evaluate the soils he/she anticipates using in the protective layer of the liner
system and the materials anticipated in the overlying waste, in order to estimate the risk of
chemical clogging of the primary leachate collection layer. GRI-GC8 recommends using values
in the range of 1.5 to 2.0 for chemical clogging in the leachate collection system (see Table 4.4).
Values at the lower end of the range should be used for municipal solid waste.
GRI-GC8 recommends using values in the range of 1.1 to 1.5 for chemical clogging in the
leakage detection layer (see Table 4.4). The designer should evaluate the soils he/she anticipates
using in the protective layer of the liner system and the typical materials anticipated in the waste
stream, in order to evaluate the risk of chemical clogging.
4.3.3 Biological Clogging Reduction Factor, RFBC

The biological clogging reduction factor accounts for the reduction of flow in the geonet due to
the growth of biological organisms such as fungi or algae, or root penetration through the
overlying soil. GRI-GC8 recommends using values in the range of 1.2 to 3.5 for biological
4-15
clogging in the final cover system (see Table 4.4). The authors consider the upper end of this
range to constitute a condition whereby improper design of the cover allows root penetration to
occur. Coordination is required with a plant biologist and the cover system designer to
understand how prolific and how deep roots may develop. The reduction factor for biological
clogging should then represent anticipated design conditions.
GRI-GC8 does not provide explicit recommendations for selecting a biological clogging
reduction factor for a landfill gas collection layer. A comparison to the other functions described
in GRI-GC8 can nonetheless be made. The authors believe that the risk for biological clogging in
the landfill gas collection layer should be similar to the leakage detection layer. The authors
recommend using a range similar to that in the leakage detection layer range of 1.1 to 1.3, since
the layers level of exposure to leachate will be similar to that of the LDS. In the absence of
available information, the designer is urged to choose a conservative value (i.e., 1.3).
GRI-GC8 recommends using values in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 for biological clogging in the
leachate collection system (see Table 4.4). The designer should evaluate the conditions
anticipated in the landfill to select an appropriate value for the biological clogging reduction
factor. In the absence of available information, the designer is urged to choose a conservative
value (i.e., 1.3).
GRI-GC8 recommends using values in the range of 1.1 to 1.3 for biological clogging in the
leakage detection system (see Table 4.4). The designer should evaluate the conditions anticipated
in the landfill to select an appropriate value for the biological clogging reduction factor. In the
absence of available information, the designer is urged to choose a conservative value (i.e., 1.3).
4.3.4 Creep Reduction Factors, RFCR

Performance transmissivity tests are typically conducted for up to 100 hours, as required by GRI
test procedure GC8. The decrease in transmissivity with time levels off within 100 hours (and
usually much sooner than that), indicating that much of the initial compression and intrusion has
already taken place (see Figure 2.10). Reduction factor for creep, RFCR, accounts for the decrease
in transmissivity beyond the first 100 hours covered by the performance transmissivity test. The
quality of the geonet core, including its structure, thickness, mass and density can have a
significant influence on creep reduction factors. Appendix B presents creep reduction factors for
geonets manufactured by GSE Lining Technology, Inc. Products from other manufacturers can
have creep factors different from those given here.
Regardless of the type of product, creep increases with increasing overburden stress. For this
reason, creep reduction factors for cover applications (i.e., cover drainage and gas removal
layers) are significantly smaller than those for liner system applications (i.e., LCRS and LDS).
As shown in Appendix B, a creep reduction factor of 1.1 is adequate for most cover projects.
Creep reduction factors should be selected on the basis of normal stress for LCRS and LDS.
4.4 Design Compression Strength of Geonets and Geocomposites

4.4.1 Introduction
4-16
Drainage geocomposites consist of a polymeric core to which a geotextile is bonded on one or

both sides. The polymeric core forms the main liquid transmission medium while the geotextile,
depending on the boundary conditions, acts as a filter or a friction layer. The flow rate or
transmissivity of the geocomposite depends primarily on the polymeric core, with a relatively
limited influence of other factors, including geotextile and manufacturing process. Two types of
geonet drainage cores are used in landfills in the US: biplanar and triplanar. There are four major
manufacturers of biplanar geonets in the US with the same overall structure as indicated in
Figure 2.1. The details of the ribs, such as rib shape, junction, spacing and orientation vary
considerably from manufacturer to manufacturer, and therefore, no two products have exactly the
same performance.
The site overburden or compressive stress on a drainage geocomposite depends on the
application and varies from project to project. For example, for landfill caps, the overburden
stress on the geocomposite is typically attributed to less than one meter of cover soil. Most
commercially available products have strengths much higher than stress imposed by a landfill
cover. As such, the strength of drainage geocomposites for landfill covers is rarely a concern. On
the other hand, the depth of waste over a landfill leachate collection layer at the base of a landfill
can be as high as 150 meters (500 ft.) with a much higher compressive stress. At such stresses,
the long-term structural integrity of the core of the drainage geocomposite can be a concern.
Many types of geonets can have strengths lower than the overburden stress found in some of the
landfills.
The selection of geocomposite drainage layers is currently based entirely on hydraulic
requirements expressed in Section 4.3. Although two of the variables in the above equations
100 and RFcr do depend on stress, the GRI procedure GC8 does not explicitly account for the
strength of the geonet in a geocomposite. The purpose of this section is to present a procedure
that can be uniquely followed to calculate the required compression strength of geonets and
geocomposites. The objective of this procedure is to ensure that the geonet does not fail as a
result of progressive decrease in thickness over time. The procedure has the effect of limiting the
maximum stress on a geocomposite to an acceptable value.
4.4.2 Data and Analysis

The compression strength of the core of a geocomposite can be obtained from ASTM test
method D 1621. This test method requires applying compressive stress on a circular or square
specimen at the rate of 2.5 mm/minute. The result for a typical biplanar geonet is a curve of the
type presented in Figure 4.9 where each of the curves represents a different type of biplanar
geonet. The curves indicate a peak value for each of the products after which there is stresssoftening in the material. The peak value is referred to as compression strength or lay-over
strength of the geonet.
Geonets are polymeric, and hence, visco-elastic in their compressive mechanical behavior. The
values of crush strength indicated would change, depending on the rate of application of the
compressive stress being higher for higher rate, and lower for the lower rate. One way to
consider the effect of time or rate of loading on the compression strength of a geonet is to
4-17
perform compression creep tests. A compression creep test is performed by maintaining a

constant stress over the test specimen. The first step in performing a compression creep test is to
obtain compression strength of the geonet according to ASTM D 1621, or any other equivalent
method. For example, products A, B, C and D in Figure 4.9 have compression strengths of
approximately 18000 psf, 20000 psf, 31000 psf and 40000 psf, respectively. Obviously, different
geonets would have different types of stress-strain behavior and the test must be performed on a
representative sample of the product which is to be tested for compressive creep.
A detailed description of compression creep tests on geonets have been provided by Thornton, et.
al. (2000) and Narejo & Allen (2004). The tests are performed in a controlled environment at
ambient or elevated temperature. When performed at elevated temperature, the tests are referred
to as accelerated creep tests, of which stepped isothermal method (SIM) is but one variety. A
contact stress, equal to a certain fraction of compression strength, say 25%, 50% or 75%, is
applied on a test specimen and maintained over a desired time. During this time, the thickness of
the specimen is recorded at regular intervals while ensuring that the temperature remains
constant. Whether a conventional creep test is used or an accelerated one, the final output of the
test is a plot of change in thickness, or thickness retained, with time. Such a plot of a product
with a compressive strength of 10,000 psf (478 kPa) is provided in Figure 4.10. The reader may
note that the rate of decrease of thickness (i.e., decrease in thickness per unit time) increases as
stress on the specimen is increased. At 1,000 psf (47.9 kPa), which is equal to about 10% of
strength, the decrease in thickness is the least and the relationship between retained thickness and
time is linear. This linear behavior can be extrapolated to obtain thickness at desired project life,
say 30 years. The next stress increment shown in the figure is 5,000 psf (239 kPa), which equals
to 50% of short term strength of the geonet. Again, the response with time is linear. However, at
a stress of 7500 psf (359 kPa), the response is linear up to a certain time at which the specimen
fails, as indicated by sudden drop in the curve. There is a significant scatter in the data at 7500
psf indicating variability in the material among different test specimen. The material represented
in Figure 4.10, with a compressive strength of 10,000 psf, is not capable of sustaining stress
beyond 5000 psf for any significant amount of time. Thus, for all practical purposes, 50% of
strength seems to be the upper limit of stress that can be placed on this material.
4-18
Figure 4.9 Compressive stress-strain behavior of geonets.
The creep curves of the type shown in Figure 4.10 were developed for products with
compression strengths ranging from 10,000 psf (478 kPa) to 50,000 psf (2394 kPa). These plots
are general1y of the type indicated in Figure 4.10 with the response being linear up to a certain
stress beyond which the material failure takes place at some time before 10,000 hours. All tests
show that the response between thickness retained and time is linear as long as stress is kept
below 50% of strength. However, as soon as the 50% stress limit is exceeded, the geonet fails by
creep at some time between the start of the test and 10,000 hours.
A plot of failure time vs. stress as a percentage of strength is presented in Figure 4.11 based on
tests performed on many biplanar geonets. The plot shows the curve becoming asymptotic to the
x-axis at a stress of approximately 50% of strength below which failure time can be very long
(i.e, much longer than the scale on x-axis). There is a considerable scatter in the data which can
be attributed to the nature of the compression tests and variability of the test specimen. Certainly,
more testing is necessary to obtain a better representation of this very important relationship.
4-19
Figure 4.10. Compression creep response of a geonet with a nominal compression strength of
10,000 psf (478 kPa).
Figure 4.11. Relationship between applied stress and failure time of biplanar geonets.
4-20
4.4.3 Design Method

The test data shown graphically in Figure 4.10 and Figure 4.11, and supported by similar results
from other tests, can be presented in the form of an empirical relationship as follows:
FS str =
s
2
p
(4.25)
Where, FSstr = factor of safety for strength of geonets, s = compression strength of geonets
(kN/m2 or lbs/ft2) and p is stress on a geocomposite in the field (kN/m2 or lbs/ft2).
For a landfill leachate collection layer, p = h, where = density of waste (kN/m3) and h is the
height of waste over a liner system (m).
Equation 4.25 can have significant implications for the design and selection of drainage
geocomposites. It states that the geonet must have a compression strength of more than twice the
stress it is expected to resist in the field. For example, for a landfill with overburden stress of
10,000 psf over the liner system, the geonet must have a minimum compression strength of
20,000 psf. That certainly makes sense based on our understanding of other visco-elastic
materials such as geogrids. These materials are never used close to their peak strength since that
would indicate failure due to creep rupture within a short time after construction.
The above design method for strength can be used in association with hydraulic design of
drainage geocomposites, according to GRI method GC8, to select a geocomposite for a project.
Many different types of geonet cores are available from manufacturers and the one that has
adequate compression strength -- i.e, results in a factor of safety of at least 2 according to
Equation 4.25 -- can be selected as the first step in design. Once the geonet core is decided upon,
the next step is to ensure that the geocomposite meets the hydraulic requirements. The material
aspect of the hydraulic design is expressed by Equation 4.24 from GRI procedure GC8. In
addition to other information (refer to the GRI procedure for further details) the procedure
requires a reduction factor for creep for the core. This must be obtained for the actual site stress
for the exact product being considered for use. For example, if a project has an overburden stress
of 5000 psf, then a creep curve at 5000 psf must be obtained from actual creep tests.
Alternatively, the manufacturer of the material can be requested to provide the data. Once a
creep curve is available, one can calculate creep reduction factors as detailed in the GRI
procedure.
4.5 Seepage Forces and Cover Soil Stability

The selection of a geosynthetic drainage layer in the previous sections was based solely on
impingement rate (qi) and compression stress (p). The use of Equation 4.24 for calculating
allowable transmissivity would ensure that liquid head stays within the drainage layer, i.e., all
percolation is adequately handled by the drainage layer. Relative to slope stability, this criterion
is important to ensure that no excess seepage forces need be considered when performing
stability calculations.
4-21
For relatively mild slopes, where the slope is stable even under saturated conditions, the drainage
requirements may be much less demanding. In such cases, the primary function of a drainage
layer might be to allow the cover soils to drain after precipitation events so that they do not
remain saturated for prolonged periods of time. Saturated soils, even on relatively flat slopes, are
more susceptible to erosion and localized bearing capacity failures (e.g., under a wheel load or a
deer hoof). Even intermittent strip drains, similar in concept to agricultural drain tiles, might be
adequate for flatter top decks.
On steeper slopes, a drainage layer above a barrier layer can be essential to the preservation of
slope stability. Numerous cover system failures causing millions of dollars worth of damage
have occurred due to inadequate drainage conditions. Giroud et. al. [1995] have derived
equations for calculating a factor of safety against sliding, both with and without seepage forces.
Soong and Koerner [1996 and 1997] have performed a detailed analysis of various aspects of
seepage for landfill cover and drainage systems. With a few simple calculations it can be shown
that the greatest vulnerability due to seepage occurs when a relatively thin soil or waste layer is
placed above a geomembrane. As a rule of thumb, the factor of safety of a completely saturated
soil on top of an impermeable layer is about one-half of the factor of safety for the same slope
when it is dry. For landfill cover and liner systems this critical seepage scenario can occur in the
following two design cases:
Temporary Case - Operational/drainage layer above a primary geomembrane prior to

the placement of a significant amount of waste.
Permanent Case - Cover soil/drainage layer placed above a landfill cover geomembrane.
Notice that the first case is of a temporary nature, i.e., the situation of seepage above the primary
liner is critical only as long as significant waste is not placed so as to provide additional resisting
forces due to the buttressing effect of the waste. As the exposure time is short, the required factor
of safety against sliding might be lower than for permanent conditions, and could be in the range
used for temporary structures. Moreover, the design storm event can be considered for a shorter
time period, say one or two years, rather than 25 to 50 years or more for permanent structures.
The second case is of a permanent nature, i.e., the cover soil system must be stable throughout
the post-closure care life of a closed landfill. Hence the factor of safety used against seepage
must be within the range typically used for permanent structures.
4.5.1 Parallel Submergence Ratio (PSR)

The general case of seepage in a soil layer placed over a geomembrane is presented in Figure
4.12. An average head of water (havg) is seen to develop above the low-permeability barrier layer.
A parallel submergence ratio (PSR) is defined as follows [Soong & Koerner, 1997]:
PSR =
havg
(4.26)
hcs + hd
where hcs = thickness of the overlying soil layer (m); and hd = thickness of the drainage layer
(m)
4-22
When transmissivity of the drainage layer is calculated according to Equation 4.24, havg
hd, and average head is calculated as follows:
Qreq
havg =
(4.27)
kd i
where Qreq = required in-plane flow rate per unit width (m3/sec-m); kd = permeability of
drainage layer (m/sec); and i = hydraulic gradient (dimensionless) = sin.
Figure 4.12. General case of seepage in soils above a liner.
When allowable transmissivity is less than the required transmissivity, i.e., FSD <1 in Equation
4.24, the average head, havg will be higher than hd. In such a case,
Qreq = i kcs (havg hd ) + k d hd
(4.28)
where kcs = permeability of cover soil (m/sec); and hd = thickness of drainage layer (m).
Re-arranging the terms in Equation 4.28,
havg
Qreq
[hd (kd kcs )]

i
=
kcs
4-23
(4.29)
Parallel submergence ratio as calculated using equations 4.26 through 4.29 is then used in slope
stability analysis as a mechanism to incorporate seepage forces. When using geonet or
geocomposite as the drainage layer, kd should be calculated based on allowable transmissivity as
discussed in Sections 2.3 and 4.3. In general it is more conservative, appropriate, and easier to
assume that once the thickness of flow exceeds the thickness of the geocomposite, the entire soil
cover is saturated. The unit-gradient method discussed earlier is based on this assumption. Partial
saturation of the cover soil in conjunction with full saturation of the drainage layer should be
evaluated with a great degree of care and caution. The safest design basis is to not allow the
thickness of the drainage layer to be exceeded.
4.5.2 Cover Veneer Slope Stability Analysis Incorporating Seepage Forces

The simplest and most straightforward cover veneer stability analyses are based on infinite
slope models. These models ignore toe buttressing effects and the benefits of any reinforcing
that may exist in the slope. On long slopes (typically where the cover soil thickness is 2-5% or
less of the slope length) the effects of toe buttressing have insignificant impact on the overall
cover veneer stability. On short slopes, toe buttressing can provide a significant resisting force
that improves the factor of safety. Most, but not all, landfill cover slopes, for example, fall under
the category of long slopes. Pond slopes often fall under the category of short slopes. It is
always conservative to ignore toe forces and perform simple infinite slope analyses.
The infinite slope stability equation for cover stability with seepage forces is shown in Figure
4.13, whose notations are defined as follows:
1 = unit weight of top soil (N/m3),

2 = unit weight of the drainage layer (N/m3),
2sat = saturated unit weight of drainage layer (N/m3),
w = unit weight of water (N/m3),
h1 = thickness of cover soil (m),
h2 = thickness of drainage layer (m),
hw = water head (m),
= slope angle (degrees).
The equation in Figure 4.13 simplifies to Equation 4.30 proposed by Giroud et. al. [1995] if the
unit weights for the drainage layer and topsoil layer are assumed to be the same, which is the
case for the geocomposite drainage layer, and the interface shear strength is assumed to be purely
frictional.
(t t w ) + b t w tan
FS = t
(4.30)
t (t t w ) + sat t w tan
where (see also Figure 4.14):
t = total unit weight of soil (N/m3),

b = buoyant unit weight of soil (N/m3),
sat = saturated unit weight of soil (N/m3),
4-24
t = total thickness of soil and drainage layer above a geomembrane (m),

tw = water flow thickness (m).
In order to calculate the required drainage layer transmissivity, one can incrementally increase
the PSR and calculate a factor of safety against sliding using the above approach. Once an
acceptable value of PSR is found, the required drainage layer hydraulic conductivity, kd, can be
determined from Equation 4.28. The required transmissivity of the drainage layer is equal to this
value of required hydraulic conductivity multiplied by thickness. This value of transmissivity
should be increased by global and partial factors of safety to account for potential unknowns, and
any time-dependent decrease in geonet/geocomposite transmissivity, as follows:
allow = req . FS D . RFCR . RFCC . RFBC
(4.31)
Figure 4.13. Calculation of veneer stability factor of safety with seepage [Thiel & Stewart,
1993].
Figure 4.14. Illustration of seepage head above liner for Equation 4.30.
4-25
All terms in the above equation have been discussed in Section 4.3.
For short slopes where it is desirable to take into account toe forces, Figure 4.15 presents the
free body diagram of active and passive wedges, assuming seepage build-up parallel to the
geomembrane. The free body diagram applies to both cover and liner system applications which
involve placing soil or a drainage layer above a geomembrane. The expression for finding the
factor of safety is obtained as follows [see Koerner and Soong, 1996]:
FS =
b + b 2 4ac
2a
where (see Figure 4.15):

a = WA sin cos U h cos 2 + U h
b = WA sin 2 tan + U h sin cos tan N A cos tan (WP U V ) tan
c = N A sin tan tan

(h hw ) (2 H cos (h + hw )) + sat ' d (hw )(2 H cos hw )
WA = dry
sin 2
h cos (2 H cos hw )
Un = w w
sin 2
Uh =
WP =
w (hw ) 2
2
dry (h 2 hw 2 ) + sat ' d (hw 2 )
sin 2
U v = U h (cot )
WA = total weight of the active wedge (kg)
WP = total weight of the passive wedge (kg)
(Area)A = area of the active wedge below the free water surface (m2)
(Area)A = area of the active wedge above the free water surface (m2)
(Area)P = area of the passive wedge (m2)
satd = area of the passive wedge (m2)
dry = dry unit weight of the soil (kN/m3)
w = unit weight of water (kN/m3)
h = thickness of the cover soil (m)
H = vertical height of the slope measured from the toe (m)
hw = (PSR . h) = height of the free water surface measured from the geomembrane (m)
PSR = parallel submergence ratio (-)
= slope angle (degrees)
Uh = resultant of the pore pressure acting on the interwedge surfaces (kN)
Un = resultant of the pore pressure acting perpendicular to the slope (kN)
Uv = resultant of the vertical pore pressures acting on the passive wedge (kN)
NA = effective force normal to the failure plane of the active wedge (kN)
4-26
(4.32)
NP = effective force normal to the failure plane of the passive wedge (kN)
= cover soil friction angle (degrees)
= interface friction angle (degrees)
EA = interwedge force acting on the active wedge from the passive wedge (kN)
EP = interwedge force acting on the passive wedge from the active wedge (kN)
FS = factor of safety against sliding
Figure 4.15. Free body diagram of active and passive wedge with seepage parallel to the liner
[Soon & Koerner, 1997].
4-27
4.6 Geotextile Filter Design

A properly designed geotextile filter is a pre-requisite for the proper functioning of a drainage
geocomposite. Too open a geotextile (i.e., a geotextile whose opening size is too large compared
to the soil being retained) can let too much fines pass through that may clog the drainage layer.
At the other extreme, a geotextile with too small an opening size can unnecessarily prevent the
fluid from getting to the drainage layer. The opening size of a properly designed geotextile
should be neither too large nor too small. This is usually accomplished by selecting a geotextile
that meets certain retention criteria which place an upper limit on the geotextile opening size.
The lower limit of geotextile opening size is governed by permeability requirements. However,
since geotextile permeability is usually much higher than that of the surrounding soils, geotextile
selection is typically based on maximum opening size. This design approach suits the drainage
geocomposites especially well, since open space within the drainage core is limited and a
significant loss of fines through the geotextile can negatively impact transmissivity performance.
Almost all the equations used for retention design are empirical in nature and were derived based
on tests performed with idealized soils or glass beads. For simple and well-behaved soils, these
equations work fairly well. For certain difficult soil types or critical design conditions,
however, a compatibility test with the target geotextile should be performed to supplement the
use of the published retention criteria. Examples include broadly-graded soils, gap-graded soils
and fine silts. The Gradient Ratio test is ideal for this purpose and provides information on soil
passing through the geotextile as well as the permeability of the soil/geotextile system.
4.6.1 Permeability Criteria

The permeability of commercially available geotextiles is usually much higher than that of most
soils. Therefore, geotextile permeability is rarely a governing design consideration. The required
geotextile permeability is usually calculated on the basis of the upstream soil permeability as
follows:
(4.33)
k geotextile > X . k soil
The value of the multiplier X depends on the application and also on how critical permeability
is to the proper functioning of the drainage layer. Practically, a value of 10 to 100 is used in
designs, with the larger value being used in more critical applications. The geotextile
permeability value obtained from Equation 4.33 must be converted to permittivity as described in
Chapter 2, since manufacturers typically publish permittivity values. Geotextile permeability or
permittivity can also be calculated using an alternative equation as given below:
FS =
allow
req ' d
(4.34)
where FS = factor of safety for permittivity (dimensionless); allow = allowable permittivity

(sec-1); and req = required permittivity (sec-1).
However, since = k/t, Equation 4.34 leads to practically the same results as Equation 4.33.
4-28
4.6.2 Retention Criteria

The second aspect of geotextile filter design, and the one that usually governs the selection of the
geotextile, concerns the retention of upstream soil. Retention design is typically based on
establishing an upper limit to the largest geotextile opening size. For this purpose one of the
many empirical equations of the following type is often used:
O95 X . d x
(4.35)
O95, also referred to as apparent opening size (AOS), represents approximately the largest soil
particle size that will pass through the geotextile. Typical AOS data for nonwoven
needlepunched geotextiles is presented in Chapter 2 (Figure 2.13). The right-hand term, dx,
denotes the soil particle size for which x% of the material by weight is finer. The choice of the
value for the constant X depends on upstream soil type as well as flow regime. The simplest
form of Equation 4.35 is based on comparing the geotextile AOS to the percentage of soil
passing through a No. 200 sieve.
1) For soil with less than 50% passing through a No. 200 sieve: O95 < 0.59 mm (i.e., AOS of
the geotextile No. 30 sieve).
2) For soils with more than 50% passing through a No. 200 sieve: O95 < 0.30 mm (i.e., AOS
of the fabric No. 50 sieve).
More often designs compare the geotextile AOS to a specific particle size of the upstream soil.
For example, Carrol [1983] recommended the following relationship that is now widely used in
designs:
O95 < (2 to 3) d85
(4.36)
More detailed procedures, including those for non-steady state flow conditions (such as dynamic
or reversible flow) and problematic soils (such as gap-graded or broadly-graded soils), can be
found in Luettich et. al. [1992].
4.6.3 Long-Term Effects, Soil-Geotextile Compatibility and Clogging

While limited soil loss through the geotextile is acceptable, a continued piping can decrease
geocomposite transmissivity below an acceptable value and can lead to under-performance or
even failure of the drainage system. The opposite extreme of geotextile clogging, although
undesirable, is considered to be less of a concern because of the large spatial areas over which
drainage geocomposites are placed. The compatibility of the candidate geotextile with upstream
soil can be evaluated according to the Gradient Ratio test (ASTM D5101). The time-dependent
behavior of geotextile filters from a Gradient Ratio test can be hypothetically represented as in
Figure 4.16. The three possible responses are as follows:
1) Piping: In this case there is an increase in soil-geotextile permeability over time,
accompanied by soil loss through the geotextile. This indicates that the geotextile
opening size is too large to retain the upstream soil for the flow and gradients involved.
4-29
2) Stable: The second curve shows that permeability decreases over time, but then becomes
more or less constant. This is the type of behavior generally desired from a properly
designed geotextile.
3) Clogging: The last curve (number 3) shows a continued decrease in permeability over
time, possibly due to particulate clogging of the geotextile. Such geotextile behavior may
unnecessarily restrict the flow and prevent it from reaching the composite core.
While response #2 is desirable, the designer should definitely select a geotextile such that
response #1 is prevented. This means erring on the side of a lower geotextile opening size.
20
40
Time (hours)
60
80
100
0
10
1
Permeability (% Change)
20
30
2
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 4.16. Hypothetical curves indicating possible response of geotextile permeability

with time.
4-30
Chapter 5 Design Flow Charts
CHAPTER 5
DESIGN FLOW CHARTS
5.1 Introduction
Chapter 4 presented detailed design methods and concepts for each of the four
applications of geocomposites in landfills. This chapter presents the same information in
the form of flow charts. The value of flow charts is that they enable the designer to
consider all aspects of the problem as well as various options, to minimize cost while
meeting performance requirements. Notice that the flow charts relate only to the
hydraulic capacity (transmissivity or flow rate) and structural strength calculations. It is
important that filtration and slope stability requirements are met as well, as addressed in
Chapter 4 and various references at the end of this manual.
Table 5.1 provides typical values, ranges or rough approximations for some of the input
parameters required for the design and selection of drainage materials. This information
should never be used as a substitute for site-specific data, except to perform conceptual
and preliminary design when site-specific information is not yet available. The table also
provides a useful tool for verifying the validity of the site-specific input data when any
doubts exist or when the methods used to collect the data are in question.
5-1
Table 5.1 Approximate values or ranges for input data used in the design.
Notation
Description
Approximate Value or Range
Landfill cover or liner system slope
1 to 18 degrees
angle
Cover soil thickness
2 feet minimum
tcover
Cover
soil
unit
weight
100
to 130 pcf (site-specific)
cover
Cover soil permeability
1x10-3 to 1x10-6 cm/sec (sitekcover
specific)
Horizontal distance between outlets
150 feet maximum
L
Run-off coefficient
See Table 4.1
RC
Precipitation
Site-specific
P
Reduction factor for creep
See Appendix B (contact
RFCR
manufacturer)
Reduction factor for biological
See Table 4.4 (GRI GC8)
RFBC
clogging
Reduction factor for chemical clogging See Table 4.4 (GRI GC8)
RFCC
Mass per unit area
Product-specific
Polymer
density
0.94
(HDPE), 0.91 (PP) grams/cc
100-hour transmissivity
See Appendix A (product-specific)
100
Interface friction angle
product- and site-specific
Landfill gas generation rate

~ 0.1 scf/yr/lb
rg
Landfill waste thickness
Site-specific
twaste
Landfill waste density
60 to 90 pcf
waste
Hole area in primary geomembrane
3.1 mm2 (typical)
a
Hole frequency in primary
1 to 10 per acre (4000 m2)
f
geomembrane
(typical)
Action leakage detection time
1 -7 days
Td
Drainage aggregate porosity
Calculate
nc
Geosynthetic porosity
Equation 2.11
nd
Factor of safety for slope stability
1.3 to 1.5
FS
Factor of safety for drainage
2 to 3
FSd
5-2
5.2 Final Cover Design Flow Chart

Establish Inputs
, L, cover, tcover, kcover, P, RC
Solve for qi
If using Unit Gradient approach,
assume qi = kcover; otherwise
qi = kcover when P(1-RC) > kcover
qi = P(1-RC) when P(1-RC) kcover
Select new
product
or
redesign the
layout of the
system.
Establish Inputs
cover, tcover
Solve for
req =
Establish allow
Solve for FSstr
allow = req*RFCR *RFBC * RFCC * FSd
FSstr = s/p
Where s = compression
strength of geonet, and p =
overburden stress = cover x tcover
Is FSstr > 2?
qi * L
sin
Obtain 100 from actual testing

or from manufacturers
No
No
Yes
Is 100 > allow
Yes
Establish
specifications
(Appendices C & D)
Notations
= slope angle with horizontal (degrees); L = horizontal slope length (m); cover = cover soil unit weight (kN/m3),
tcover = cover soil thickness (m); kcover = cover soil permeability (m/sec); P = precipitation (m); RC = run-off
coefficient (-); qi = impingement rate (m/sec); req = required site-specific transmissivity (m2/sec); allow =
allowable product-specific transmissivity (m2/sec); 100 = 100-hour transmissivity from a test (m2/sec); RCCR =
reduction factor for creep; RCCC = reduction factor for chemical clogging; RCBC = reduction factor for biological
clogging; FSd = factor of safety for drainage; FSstr = Factor of safety for strength of geonet; p = overburden
stress on geonet (kN/m2); and s = compression strength of geonet (kN/m2).
5-3
5.3 Landfill Gas Collection Design Flow Chart

Establish Inputs
FSs, , cover, , tcover, rg, twaste, waste, g, D
Solve for
u max = cover tcover cos
FS s cover tcover sin

tan
Solve forqg
q g = rg t waste waste
Solve forgreq
greq =
Select new
product
or
redesign the
layout of the
system.
Establish Inputs
cover, tcover
qg g D 2
u max 8
Convert to req
req = greq
g w
w g
Solve for FSstr

Establish allow
FSstr = s/p
allow = req * RFCR *RFBC * RFCC * FSd
overburden stress = cover x tcover
Obtain 100 from actual testing
or from manufacturers
Is FSstr > 2?
Yes
No
No
Establish specifications
(Appendices C&D)
Is 100 > allow

Yes
Notations:
FS = factor of safety for slope stability; = interface friction angle (deg); cover = cover soil unit weight (kN/m3);
g = gas unit weight (kN/m3); twaste = waste thickness (m); waste = waste unit weight (kN/m3); rg = gas generation
rate (m3/sec/kg); D = half the distance between outlets (m); = slope angle (deg.); max = allowable gas pressure
(kPa); qg = landfill gas supply rate (m/sec); greq = required transmissivity for gas (m2/sec); req = required equivalent
water transmissivity (m2/sec); g = landfill gas dynamic viscosity (kPa); water = dynamic viscosity of water (kPa); water
= unit weight of water (kN/m3); allow = allowable transmissivity (m2/sec); RFCR = reduction factor for creep; RFCC =
reduction factor for chemical clogging; RFBC = reduction factor for biological clogging; FSd = factor of safety for
drainage; FSstr = factor of safety for strength; s = compression strength of geonet (kN/m2); and p = overburden stress
(kN/m2).
5-4
5.4 Leachate Collection Design Flow Chart

Establish Inputs
, L, waste, h (varies), daily cover soil types, weather,

qiHELP analyses (3-6 cases)
Solve for req
Establish Inputs
req =
waste, twaste
Select new
product
or
redesign the
layout of the
system.
Solve for FSstr

FSstr = s/p
overburden stress = wastex twaste
qi * L
sin
Establish allow
Note: req and reduction factors will
depend on the life-stage under consideration
Obtain 100 from actual testing or

from manufacturers
Is FSstr > 2?
No
No
Yes
Is 100 > allow

Yes
(Appendices C & D)
Notations
3
= slope angle with horizontal (degrees); L = horizontal slope length (m); waste = unit weight of waste (kN/m );
2
h = depth waste (m, varies with stage); qi = impingement rate (m/sec); req = required site-specific transmissivity (m /sec);
allow = allowable product-specific transmissivity (m2/sec); 100 = 100-hour transmissivity from a test (m2/sec);
RFCR = reduction factor for creep; RFCC = reduction factor for chemical clogging; RFBC = reduction factor for biological clogging;
2
FSd = factor of safety for drainage; FSstr = factor of safety for strength; s = compression strength (kN/m ); and p = overburden
2
pressure (kN/m ); twaste = total thickness of waste (m).
5-5
5.5 Leak Detection Design Flow Chart

Establish Inputs
nc, nd,Lc, Ld, ic, id, kc, td
Establish Inputs
, L, waste, twaste, cover

soil properties
Solve for req
Solve for req
req =
req =
qi * L
sin
nd Ld t d
n L
id Td c c
k c ic
Establish Inputs
waste, ttwaste
Solve for FSstr

FSstr = s/p
Select larger of the two

req for
the subsequent design
Select new
product
or
redesign the
layout of the
system.
Establish allow
overburden stress = wastex twaste
Obtain 100 from actual testing or

from manufacturers
No
Is FSstr > 2?
Is 100 > allow
Yes
Yes
(Appendices C & D)
Notations
= slope angle with horizontal (degrees); L = horizontal slope length (m); waste = unit weight of waste (kN/m3);
hwaste = depth of waste (m); qi = leakage rate (m/sec); req = required site-specific transmissivity (m2/sec);
nc = drainage corridor porosity; nd = drainage geocompoiste porosity; Lc = drainage geocomposite length (m);
Ld = drainage corridor length (m); ic = gradient for drainage geocomposite; id = gradient for drainage corridor;
kc = drainage geocomposite hydraulic conductivity (m/sec); td = drainage geocomposie thickness (m); allow =
allowable product-specific transmissivity (m2/sec); 100 = 100-hour transmissivity from a test (m2/sec);
RFCR = reduction factor for creep; RFCC = reduction factor for chemical clogging; RFBC = reduction factor for
biological clogging; FSd = factor of safety for drainage; and twaste = thickness of waste (m); FSstr = factor of
safety for strength; twaste = thickness of waste (m).
5-6
Chapter 6 Design Examples
CHAPTER 6
DESIGN EXAMPLES
6.1 Final Cover Drainage Geocomposite Design
Example 1
The purpose of this design example is to show the process involved in designing and
approving a geocomposite for use as the final cover drainage layer in a landfill cover
system. The process is illustrated in Section 5.2 and typically involves the following
steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
Choose appropriate values for input parameters

Establish design input flow rate (i.e., impingement or percolation rate, qi)
Solve for required transmissivity, req
Establish allowable transmissivity, allow
Establish compression strength
Select appropriate product
Write specifications
Obtain lab testing results
Determine product acceptability. If not acceptable, either redesign (return to
Step 1) or select new product (return to Step 6).
Step 1 Choose Input Parameter Values

Several of the input parameters are derived from the geometry of the design. For this
example, Figure 6.1 shows a simplified design that will be used in selecting these
geometric input parameters. Each of the input parameters is discussed below:
Slope angle of side slope, = 18.43 degrees (from design drawing Figure 6.1)
Max. horizontal drainage length of side slope, L = 30 m (from design drawings,
distance between benches/ditches, make sure geocomposite daylights or
drains into a pipe)
Thickness of cover system, tcover = 0.6 m (from design drawing Figure 6.1;
regulations typically require cover thickness of at least 2 feet)
Unit weight of cover soil, cover = 17.3 kN/m3 (typically ranges from 100 to 130
pcf; should correspond to soil type that will be used for protective soil)
Permeability of cover protective soil, kcover = 1 x 10-4 cm/s (should correspond to
soil type that will be used for protective soil)
Step 2 Establish Design Input Flow Rate (Impingement Rate, qi

Assume Unit Gradient Method for the design ( see Section 4.2.1):
qi = kcover = 1 x 10-4 cm/s = 1 x 10-6 m/s
6-1
Figure 6.1. Schematic showing design geometry of example problem.
Step 3 Solve for Required Transmissivity

Use the following equation (Equation 4.6) to solve for the required transmissivity (req):
req =
qi L
sin
For the design example side slope,
6-2
k cover L 1 10 -6 m/s 30m

=
= 9.49 10 5 m 2 /s
sin
0.3162
Step 4 Establish Allowable Transmissivity
req =
The required transmissivity, req, as calculated above, is increased to account for

uncertainties (in the form of an overall factor of safety) and the long-term reduction of
the transmissivity of the geocomposite due to anticipated environmental factors (in the
form of reduction factors).
allow = req* FSD * RFCC * RFBC * RFCR

For the design example:
FSD = 3.0 (accounts for uncertainty associated with inflow rate and the potential
for particulate clogging)
RFCC = 1.0 (see Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.0 to 1.2 based on alkalinity of
protective soil; if soil is not alkaline in nature, then this can be ignored and set
equal to 1.0)
RFBC = 2.0 (see Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.2 to 3.5 based on anticipated
biological growth environment; allow that potential root penetration could
reduce transmissivity by half)
RFCR = 1.1 = see Appendix B = Contact manufacturers of products being
considered here assume a value of 1.1 based on a stress of 1,000 psf.
For side slope,
allow = 9.49 x 10-5 m2/sec * 3.0 * 1.0 * 2.0 * 1.1

= 6.3 x 10-4 m2/sec
Laboratory 100-hour transmissivity test value should be equal to or higher than the
above allowable value.
For relatively mild slopes, such as the top deck, where the slope is stable even under
saturated conditions, the drainage requirements are much less demanding. In such cases,
the primary function of a drainage layer might be to allow the cover soils to drain after
precipitation events so they will not remain saturated for prolonged periods of time.
Saturated soils, even on relatively flat slopes, are more susceptible to erosion and
localized bearing capacity failures (e.g. under a wheel load or a deer hoof). Even
intermittent strip drains, similar in concept to agricultural drain tiles, can often be
adequate for flatter top decks. It is also a good practice to collect all surface and subsurface drainage and keep it separate from the side-slope drainage, to avoid exceeding
the sideslope drainage capacity and erosion resistance. A generic design concept is
shown in the figure below (Figure 6.2). In this case the surface drainage ditch and
subsurface drainage collector along the perimeter would be designed to function even in
a severe storm event such as a 100-year storm event, because it is an element of
protection for the side slopes. Because the slope stability of the top deck is not an issue
in this case, the design storm event for the geocomposite drainage layer on the top deck
might be similar to that typically used by State Departments of Transportation (e.g. a
6-3
10-year storm event). The sizing of the geocomposite lateral drainage media on the top
deck could be based on the precipitation-runoff-infiltration method promoted by Soong
and Koerner (1997) and explained in Chapter 4.
Figure 6.2. Example of drainage details for flat deck at the top of the slope.
Step 5 Establish Compression Strength
A compression strength equal to twice the overburden stress is required as per Equation
4.25. Overburden stress = cover x tcover. Assume cover = 17 kN/m3 and tcover = 0.6 m.
Therefore, overburden stress = p = 0.6 x 17 = 10 kPa (210 psf). The compression
strength, s = 2 x p = 420 psf. Therefore, the allowable compression strength is 420 psf.
Step 6 Select an Appropriate Product
Product selection is based on allowable transmissivity, creep reduction factor and
compression strength. Appendix B shows that for an overburden stress of 1000 psf and
a gradient of 0.3, a 275 mil drainage geocomposite would meet the allowable 100-hour
transmissivity of 6.3x10-4 m2/sec. (Note: Appendix A does not provide transmissivity
for this geocomposite). The compression strength of the core used in FabriNet HS
HyperNet HS is many times higher than the allowable value of 420 psf. All HyperNet
geonets meet or exceed a creep reduction factor of 1.1 for a stress of 420 psf as is
indicated in Appendix B. Therefore, this project would utilize GSE FabriNet HS
drainage geocomposite.
Step 7 Write Specifications
Write specifications according to example specifications provided in Appendix D. The
specifications should clearly define the conditions of the laboratory testing and the
criteria that define the products acceptability. In addition to index properties, the
product must meet the performance requirements of compression strength of 420 psf,
100-hour transmissivity of 6.3x10-4 m2/sec and creep reduction factor of 1.1. For the
latter, testing conditions including (i) applied stress, (ii) hydraulic gradient, (iii)
boundary conditions, and (iv) seating time must be clearly specified. Use applied stress
6-4
of 420 psf, hydraulic gradient of 0.32, boundary

soil/geocomposite/geomembrane and test duration of 100 hours.
conditions
of
Step 8 Obtain Laboratory Test Data

It might be necessary to obtain test data in support of the specifications. This can be
done by either performing testing specifically for the project or requesting information
from the manufacturer. For routine projects, either actual testing and/or manufacturers
data is acceptable. For more complex projects, some type of design testing may be
necessary prior to finalizing the specifications. Engineers typically rely on
manufacturers for creep data as creep tests are expensive and time consuming.
Compression and transmissivity tests are relatively quick and inexpensive making it
possible to perform these tests on a more frequent basis. Other data included in the
specifications, such as carbon black content and tensile properties, can be obtained from
manufacturers specifications.
Step 9 Determine Product Acceptability
Product test data should be compared to project specifications and design assumptions
to ensure that specific product meets or exceeds all the requirements. Specifications
should be written such that one of the several products available in the market place can
be used based on the cost and availability.
Example 2
For a landfill cover, given thickness (tcover) of 2 ft, saturated unit weight of top soil
(cover) of 120 lbs/ft3, and coefficient of hydraulic conductivity (k) of 1x10-4 cm/sec;
thickness of drainage geocomposite of 300 mils (0.3 inches), and cover slope angle of
18 degrees; and transmissivity of geocomposite drainage layer (100) = 1x10-3 m2/sec;
determine the spacing between drainage outlets to ensure that flow is completely within
the geocomposite.
Solution: Assume percolation rate equal to the coefficient of hydraulic conductivity, k.
The following information is given:
100 = 100-hour test transmissivity = 1x10-3 m2/sec
qi = k = 1x10-4 cm/sec = 1x10-6 m/sec
Assume, RFcr = 1.1, RFbc = 2 and RFcc = 1.3 (see GRI GC8 for guidance)
The basic factor of safety for drainage is defined as: FS dr =
allow = 100 / (RFcr x RFcc x RFbc)
allow = 1x10-3 / (1.1x1.3x2) = 3.5x10-4 m2/sec
6-5
allow
req
req =
qi L 1x10 6 xL
=
= 3.2x10-6 x L
sin
0.31
Using a factor of safety of 2 for drainage and comparing allowable transmissivity with
the required transmissivity, one obtains:
2 x 3.2 x 10-6 x L = 3.5x10-4
3.5 x10 4
L=
= 54 m
2 x 3.2 x10 6
Therefore, a maximum spacing of 50 meters can be allowed between the drainage
outlets.
Example 3
A site utilizes a very coarse soil with hydraulic conductivity of 0.001 cm/sec in a semiarid region where maximum 100-year rainfall intensity is 0.0001 cm/sec. The run-off
coefficient for the cover soil has been found to be equal to 0.20. Calculate percolation
rate into the drainage layer underlying the cover soil and compare it with the unit
gradient method.
Solution: From Chapter 2, qi = P(1-RC) = 0.0001 (1-0.2) = 8x10-5 cm/sec. The unit
gradient method (refer to Chapter 2) assumes qi = k = 0.001 cm/sec. Thus the value of
the percolation rate is 8x10-5/0.001 = 800 times less than that with the unit gradient
method.
6.2 Landfill Gas Collection Geocomposite Design

approving a geocomposite for use as the landfill gas (LFG) collection layer of a landfill.
The process typically involves the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Establish design input flow rate (i.e., landfill gas flux, qg)
Establish allowable trasmissivity, allow
Step 1) or select new product (return to Step 6)
Step 1 Establish Input Parameters
Factor of safety for slope failure, FSs = 1.5 (based on standard practice)
6-6
Interface shear strength, = 30o (Also run 27o, 27.5o and 28.5o) (if testing is
available, use test results; otherwise, consult with manufacturers to establish
reasonable value, which must be checked with lab testing upon product
selection)
Unit weight of cover soil, cover = 120 pcf (typically ranges from 100-130 pcf
depending on soil type)
Slope angle, = 18.43 degrees (from design drawings; slope angle for a 3:1
slope)
Thickness of overlying cover system, tcover = 3.5 ft (from design drawings)
Gas generation rate, rg = 0.1 scf/yr/lb (use USEPA model; varies for landfill age,
waste type and region; typical value for MSW is ~0.1 scf/yr/lb)
Average waste thickness, twaste = 80 ft (from design drawings for average
thickness of waste)
Unit weight of waste, waste = 70 pcf (typically ranges from 60 to 90 pcf)
Unit weight of LFG, g = 0.0815 pcf
Collector Pipe Spacing, D = 75 feet
Dynamic viscosity of LFG, g = 2.77x10-7 lb-s/ft2
Step 2 Solve for Landfill Gas Flux (qg)

Solve for the LFG Flux by using the properties of the waste and average thickness of
the waste to define the flux.
q g = rg t waste waste

= 0.1scf/yr/lb 80ft 70pcf
= 560scf/yr/ft 2
= 1.77 x10 5 scf/sec/ft 2
Table 6.3. Typical properties of water and various gases [Thiel, 1998].
6-7
Figure 6.3. Schematic of Landfill Gas Infinite Slope Stability Conditions

[Thiel, 1998].
Figure 6.4. Model of gas flow to strip drains.

Step 3 Solve for Required Transmissivity (req)
Establish Allowable Gas Pressure (umax)
Compute the maximum allowable gas pressure, umax, such that the FS = 1.5 (long-term
slope stability).
u max = cover t cover cos
6-8
(FS s cover t cover sin )

tan

For = 30 degrees
1.5 120pcf 2ft sin(18.43 o )
= 120pcf 2ft cos(18.43 o )

tan 30 o
= 227.7 psf - 197.1psf

= 30.6psf (5.9" H 2 0)
For = 28.5 degrees

1.5 120pcf 2ft sin(18.43 o )
= 120pcf 2ft cos(18.43 o )

tan 28.5 o
= 227.7 psf - 209.6psf

= 18.1psf (3.5" H 2 0)
For = 27.5 degrees

1.5 120pcf 2ft sin(18.43 o )
= 120pcf 2ft cos(18.43 o )

tan 27.5 o
= 227.7 psf - 218.6psf

= 9.1psf (1.75" H 2 0)
For = 27 degrees
1.5 120pcf 2ft sin(18.43 o )
= 120pcf 2ft cos(18.43 )

tan 27 o
= 227.7 psf - 223.4psf

o
= 4.3psf (0.83" H 2 0)
Solve for the required transmissivity in terms of LFG using the parameters of maximum
allowable gas pressure and flux. The equation shown below models the case where gas
flow within the geocomposite is being routed to and collected by laterally oriented strip
drains with a known spacing. Other cases can be modeled; however, these are not
addressed in this manual.
greq =
qg gas D 2

u max 8

For = 30 degrees
6-9
(1.77 10 5 scf/sec/ft 2 )(0.0815pcf ) 75ft 2
30.6psf
8
= 3.3 10 5 ft 2 / sec
= 3.1 10 -6 m 2 /sec
For = 28.5 degrees
(1.77 10 5 scf/sec/ft 2 )(0.0815pcf ) 75ft 2
=
18.1psf
8
= 5.6 10 5 ft 2 / sec
= 5.2 10 6 m 2 /sec
For = 27.5 degrees
(1.77 10 5 scf/sec/ft 2 )(0.0815pcf ) 75ft 2
=
9.1psf
8
= 1.1 10 4 ft 2 / sec
= 1.0 10 5 m 2 /sec
For = 27 degrees
=
(1.77 10 5 scf/sec/ft 2 )(0.0815pcf ) 75ft 2
4.3psf
8
= 2.3 10 4 ft 2 / sec
= 2.2 10 5 m 2 /sec
Solve for the required transmissivity in terms of water for typical LFG and water
properties using the equation shown below:
req = greq
g w
w g

For = 30 degrees
2.76 x 10 -7 lb - s/ft 2 62.4pcf
= 3.1 x 10 m /sec
2.11 x 10 -5 lb - s/ft 2 0.0815pcf
6
= 3.1 10 5 m 2 / sec
For = 28.5 degrees
6-10
= 5.2 x 10 6 m 2 /sec
2.76 x 10 -7 lb - s/ft 2 62.4pcf

2.11 x 10 -5 lb - s/ft 2 0.0815pcf
= 5.2 10 5 m 2 / sec
For = 27.5 degrees

= 1.0 x 10 5 m 2 /sec
2.76 x 10 -7 lb - s/ft 2 62.4pcf

2.11 x 10 -5 lb - s/ft 2 0.0815pcf
= 1.0 10 4 m 2 / sec
For = 27 degrees
2.76 x 10 -7 lb - s/ft 2 62.4pcf
2
5
= 2.2 x 10 m /sec
2.11 x 10 -5 lb - s/ft 2 0.0815pcf
= 2.2 10 4 m 2 / sec
Step 4 Establish Allowable Transmissivity (allow)

The required transmissivity, req, calculated above is increased to account for
uncertainties (in the form of an overall factor of safety) and the long-term reduction of
the transmissivity of the geocomposite due to anticipated environmental factors (in the
form of reduction factors).
allow = req * RFCC * RFBC * RFCR * FSD

RFCC = 1.1 (See Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.1 to 2.0 based on
leachate/waste characteristics. Chemical precipitation is not likely due to
condensate.)
RFBC = 1.1 (See Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.1 to 1.3 based on anticipated
biological growth environment. Environment on bottom side of cover
will mostly be subjected to VOCs, not typical leachate.)
FSD = 2.0 (range from 2.0 to 3.0)
RFCR = 1.1 = see Appendix B = contact manufacturers
For = 30 degrees
allow = 3.1 x 10-5 m2/sec * 1.1 * 1.1 * 2.0 * 1.1
For = 28.5 degrees
= 8.2 x 10-5 m2/sec
allow = 5.2 x 10-5 m2/sec * 1.1 * 1.1 * 2.0 * 1.1

= 1.3 x 10-4 m2/sec
For = 27.5 degrees
allow = 1 x 10-4 m2/sec * 1.1 * 1.1 * 2.0 * 1.1

= 2.7 x 10-4 m2/sec
6-11
For = 27 degrees
allow = 2.2 x 10-4 m2/sec * 1.1 * 1.1 * 2.0 * 1.1

= 5 x 10-4 m2/sec

A compression strength equal to twice the overburden stress is required as per Equation
4.25. Overburden stress = cover x tcover. Assume cover = 17 kN/m3 and tcover = 0.6 m.
Therefore, overburden stress = p = 0.6 x 17 = 10 kPa (210 psf). The compression
strength, s = 2 x p = 420 psf. Therefore, the allowable compression strength is 420 psf.
Step 6 Select Appropriate Product
Product selection should be made by consulting with manufacturers to select a product
that is anticipated to meet the project requirements from past experience at the least
expensive cost to the project.
For the design example,
GSE FabriNet HF (250 mil) double-sided geocomposite with 6 oz. nonwoven
needlepunched geotextile was selected based on the transmissivity data in Figure
A-6, and an interface friction angle of 27 degrees between the geocomposite and
the textured HDPE geomembrane. This product has a creep reduction factor of 1.1
for 1000 psf and more than adequate compression strength.
Write specifications for drainage geocomposite according to the example specifications
provided in Appendix D. Include the requirements for creep, compression strength and
transmissivity in the specification in addition to the index properties.
Step 8 Obtain laboratory testing results
Site-specific laboratory testing results for the 100-hr transmissivity may need to be
obtained. Testing should be performed at the conditions described in the specifications,
which include: (i) applied stress; (ii) hydraulic gradient; (iii) boundary conditions; and
(iv) seating time.
The designer should make sure that the testing procedures reflect the conditions detailed
in the specifications. This permits these results to be used to determine the products
acceptability.
A transmissivity value of 5.5x10-4 m2/sec was obtained by an independent laboratory
for the test conditions described above. Moreover, a minimum interface friction angle of
27.5 degrees was obtained for the geomembrane-geocomposite interface.
6-12

Based on the transmissivity and creep test data, GSE FabriNet HF is acceptable for use
on this project, as long as the interface friction angle is at least 27.
6.3 Leachate Collection Design

Example 1
The purpose of this design example is to demonstrate how the different stages of a
landfill life can be taken into account when designing a geocomposite for a leachate
collection system. The particular case of a bioreactor landfill, which is especially
aggressive on drainage systems, is used. The design process involves the following
steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Establish design input flow rate (i.e., impingement rate, qi).
Establish allowable transmissivity, allow,
Step 1 Establish Input Parameters
geometric input parameters.
The inputs used in this example are presented below:
Slope of cell-floor = 4.5% = 2.57 degrees

Drainage length on cell-floor = 262 feet (33 feet plus 229 feet) ( 70m plus 10m)
Side slope angle = 18.43 degrees (Ssideslope = 0.333)
Drainage length on sideslope = 98 feet (30m)
Unit weight of waste = 75 pcf (11.8 kN/m3) (typically ranges from 60 to 90 pcf)
Thickness of waste = varies depending on operating stage
Cover Soil Properties (Daily Cover, Interim Cover, Final Cover)

Daily Cover
Permeability of Daily Cover = 5 x 10-3 cm/s (based on type of soil used for interim
cover)
6-13
Thickness of Daily Cover = 0.5 ft (15 cm) (based on anticipated/required operating

procedures)
Figure 6.5. Simplified schematic of design geometry for example problem.
Interim Cover
Permeability of Interim Cover = 1 x 10-4 cm/s (based on type of soil used for interim
cover)
Thickness of Interim Cover = 1 ft (30 cm) (based on anticipated/required -operating
procedures)
Final Cover (see Figure 6.6)
Permeability of Vegetative Layer = 1 x 10-4 cm/s (based on type of soil used for
cover vegetative layer)
Thickness of Vegetative Layer = 2 ft (60 cm) (from design drawing Figure 6.6)
Cover Geocomposite (Use HELP default properties for purpose of leakage
calculations)
40 mil Textured PE Geomembrane (Use HELP default properties for purposes of
leakage calculations)
6-14
Permeability of Soil Barrier Layer = 1 x 10-5 cm/s (maximum allowable

permeability for cover system barrier soil layer)
Thickness of Soil Barrier Layer, tbarrier = 1.5 ft (45 cm) (from design drawing Figure
6.7)
Figure 6.6. Design of final cover system.
Figure 6.7. Design of bottom liner system.
Step 2 Establish Design Impingement Rate
Select the leachate impingement rate, qi, to include in the design. It is recommended
that the designer model the selected rate for a series of stages representing various
phases in the operating life of the landfill. The number of stages will vary depending on
site-specific landfill conditions such as: (i) interim staging and sequencing; (ii)
runoff/run-on control practices; (iii) use of daily, interim and final cover materials; and
(iv) thickness of waste and other overlying materials. For most sites it will likely take 36 stages to adequately define the operation stages.
6-15
For the design example, it will be assumed that four stages will provide an adequate
modeling of the landfill life. The results for impingement rate for various stages have
been obtained using HELP and are shown for each stage in Table 6.5 below:
Stage
I
II
III
IV
Table 6.5. HELP analysis results for LCS design example.

Description
Peak LCS In-Flow - qi
Initial Operation 10 (3 m) Waste
Active Operation 80 (24 m) Waste
Intermediate Cover 140 (43 m)
Waste
Post-Closure 140 (43 m) Waste
0.571 in/day = 1.68 x 10-5 cm/s

0.064 in/day = 1.88 x 10-6 cm/s
0.030 in/day = 8.80 x 10-7cm/s
1.09 x 10-5 in/day = 3.20 x 10-10 cm/s
Solve for req for cell floor and side slope for each Stage (I-IV). The results of the
solution of the req are shown below for this example:
Stage IA (cell-floor), req
1.68 x10 7 m / sec 80m

=
= 2.99 10 4 m 2 / sec
sin 2.577
Stage IB (side slope), req =
1.68 x10 7 m / sec 30m

= 1.59 10 5 m 2 / sec
sin 18.435
Results of similar calculations for other cases are summarized in Table 6.6.
Step 4 Establish Allowable Transmissivity
The specified transmissivity, allow, is increased above the design transmissivity to

account for uncertainties (in the form of an overall factor of safety) and the long-term
reduction of the transmissivity of the geocomposite due to anticipated environmental
factors (in the form of reduction factors).
FSD = The global factor of safety is a somewhat arbitrary value selected by the
designer based on the level of uncertainty and relative risk associated with failure.
Typical values suggested for design with geocomposites range from 2.0 to 3.0
(Narejo and Richardson, 2003). Given the higher levels of uncertainty associated
with long-term performance of bioreactor systems, and the relative importance of
having leachate collection systems that operate well into the future, somewhat
higher factors of safety may be warranted for the different life stages. For this
design example we have chosen values of FSD = 2, 3, 4, and 5 for Stages I-IV,
respectively, as shown in Table 6.6. These values reflect advancing degrees of
uncertainty as time goes forward.
RFCC = The suggested range for the reduction factor for chemical clogging from
GRI GC8 is from 1.5 to 2.0 for most leachate collection systems based on the
chemical makeup of leachate and the length of time exposure. While these values
6-16
might be typical for standard average landfill conditions, a more rigorous and
expansive interpretation might be appropriate over the lifetime of a bioreactor
landfill. For a very short exposure time, as in Stage I, a low value would be
appropriate. As exposure time increases, the recommended reduction factor would
be increased. We have chosen values of 1.2, 1.5, 2, and 4 for Stages I-IV,
respectively, as shown on Table 6.6. This suggests that up to half of the flow
capacity could be lost due to biological clogging during the active life of the cell,
and 75% of the flow capacity could be lost to chemical precipitation during the
long-term post-closure period.
RFBC = The suggested range for the reduction factor for biological clogging from
GRI GC8 is from 1.1 to 1.3 for leachate collection systems. We believe this range
is appropriate even for bioreactor landfills because the most serious clogging
condition is probably from chemical precipitation rather than a biological
mechanism.
RFCR = The creep reduction factor varies with stress and is product-specific. For
this design example, Appendix B provides data for several different products.
Based on the selected reduction factors and global factors of safety, the specified
transmissivities, allow, can be calculated as follows:
Stage IA (floor):
allow= 2.99 x 10-4 m2/s * 2 * 1.2 * 1.1 * 1.1
= 8.6 x 10-4 m2/s
Stage IB (side slope):
allow = 1.59 x 10-5 m2/s * 2 * 1.2 * 1.1 * 1.1
= 4.6 x 10-5 m2/s
Results of similar computations for all stages of the design case are shown in Table 6.6.
The maximum depth of the waste for the final closure of the cell is stated to be 140 ft in
Table 6.5. Assume the unit weight of waste to be equal to 75 lbs/ft3. This leads to a
maximum overburden stress of 140x75 = 10,500 psf over the geocomposite. According
to Equation 4.25, the compression strength of the geocomposite must be equal to twice
this value, i.e., 21,000 psf.
The product selection is based on transmissivity requirements stated in Table 6.6 for
various test conditions, creep reduction factors used in the design and a minimum value
of compression strength as discussed above. For this particular problem, GSE FabriNet
UF is selected with a 300 mil thick biplanar core based on the data in appendices A and
B.
6-17
Step 7 - Write Specifications
The specifications should be written following the format provided in Apendix D. The
specifications should clearly define the conditions of the laboratory testing and the
criteria that define the products acceptability.
The required laboratory testing conditions include: (i) applied stress; (ii) hydraulic
gradient; (iii) boundary conditions; and (iv) seating time.
(i) Applied Stress The applied stress used in testing should be equal to the maximum
applied stress anticipated in field conditions.
100 = twaste * waste

Stage I: 100 = 10 ft * 75 pcf
= 750 psf (36 kPa)
Stage II: 100 = 80 ft * 75 pcf
= 6000 psf (287 kPa)
Stages III & IV: 100 = 140 ft * 75 pcf
= 10,500 psf (503 kPa)
(ii) Hydraulic Gradient The hydraulic gradient is equal to the sine of the slope angle
in units of length/length.
For Stages A (Cell-Floor): Slope Angle = 2.57 deg. Gradient = 0.045

For Stages B (Cell Side slope): Slope Angle = 18.43 deg. Gradient = 0.32
(iii) Boundary Conditions The term boundary conditions refers to the makeup of the
overlying and underlying materials during testing of the geocomposite. The testing
procedure should follow the guidelines of GRI-GC8, which requires that the boundary
conditions mimic field conditions. This means that site-specific materials shall be used
wherever possible. This example assumes that the on-site soil anticipated to be used as
protective soil between the waste and the geocomposite will be used above the
geocomposite, and that a textured geomembrane will be used below the geocomposite.
Both materials to be used in testing should be provided to the laboratory by the engineer
or contractor.
(iv) Seating Time Seating time affects the amount of creep and intrusion that the
geocomposite undergoes prior to transmissivity testing, which in turn affects the
measured transmissivity of the product. The laboratory testing should follow the
6-18
guidelines of GRI-GC8, which requires a seating time of at least 100 hours for testing
the transmissivity of the geocomposite. A greater seating time is acceptable; however,
this may incur greater testing expense and is usually not necessary. As required by GRIGC8, a seating time of 100-hrs is used in this design example.
An acceptable product should possess a creep reduction factor lower than that used in
the design, and a 100-hour transmissivity value higher than the specified value (allow)
for each of the design stages as presented in Table 6.6.
Step 8 - Obtain Laboratory Test Results
It is very important to obtain laboratory test results for at least transmissivity,

compression strength and creep to ensure that the product being selected for use does
indeed meet or exceed the performance requirements of the project. It is beneficial for
the owner of the project for the engineer to ensure that several commercially available
products are available that satisfy the requirements of the project. If this is not possible
then the project calculations must be performed again to obtain alternative design
solutions. Typically, transmissivity, compression strength and creep data is available
from manufactures. Additional testing should be undertaken as necessary depending on
the complexity of the project.
Product acceptability should be checked both at the design stage and during
construction through quality assurance testing by an independent laboratory. Typically,
the project owner arranges for a third party independent laboratory to test select
properties of the material as written in project specifications.
6-19
Table 6.6. Summary of geocomposite design results for leachate collection system design.
qi
req
100
(m2/sec)
(psf)
RFcc
RFbc
FSd
allow
100
Ratio
RFcr
(m2/sec)
(m2/sec)
100/req
Acceptable
Case
Description
(cm/sec)
IA
Initial
Operation
1.68E-05
2.99E-04
750 psf
1.2
1.1
2.0
1.10
8.7E-04
9.0E-04
1.0
Yes
IB
Initial
Operation
1.68E-05
1.59E-05
750 psf
1.2
1.1
2.0
1.10
4.6E-05
5.0E-04
11
Yes
IIA
Active
Operation
1.88E-06
3.34E-05
6,000 psf
1.5
1.2
3.0
1.25
2.2E-04
4.0E-04
1.8
Yes
IIB
Active
Operation
1.88E-06
1.78E-06
6,000 psf
1.5
1.2
3.0
1.25
1.2E-05
3.0E-04
25
Yes
IIIA
Intermediate
Cover
1.56E-05
10,000
psf
2.0
1.3
4.0
1.30
2.1E-04
2.0E-04
0.95
No
IIIB
Intermediate
Cover
8.80E-07
8.35E-07
10,000
psf
2.0
1.3
4.0
1.30
1.1E-05
1.5E-04
13
Yes
IVA
PostClosure
3.20E-10
5.69E-09
10,500
psf
4.0
1.3
5.0
1.40
2.1E-07
2.0E-04
966
Yes
IVB
PostClosure
3.20E-10
3.04E-10
10,500
psf
4.0
1.3
5.0
1.40
1.1E-08
1.5E-04
13,565
Yes
8.80E-07
6-20
GSE Drainage Design Manual
Example 2
A landfill owner intends to utilize a drainage geocomposite at the base of a landfill cell
with a slope of 10%. The final depth of the landfill cell is expected to be 200 ft with
approximate waste density of 100 lbs/ft3. The maximum length of the slope is equal to
100 feet. A HELP model analysis shows the percolation rate through the waste mass is
maximum 1x10-5 cm/sec when the depth of waste in the cell is 100 ft. Determine
acceptability of a drainage geocomposite with a core thickness of 250 mils and a
compression strength of 15,000 psf.
Solution The required transmissivity of the drainage layer can be calculated by using
Equation 4.13 for the case of maximum percolation rate as:
req =
q i . L 1x10 7 x100 / 3.28

=
= 3 x10 5 m 2 / sec
sin
0.099
An allowable value of transmissivity can be calculated using Equation 4.24:
allow = req FS D RFCR RFCC RFBC

Assume FSD to be equal to 2. RFCR is specific to product and depends on the
overburden stress and design life-time. Calculations for allowable transmissivity are
being performed for the case of landfill cell depth being equal to 100 ft. This results in
an overburden stress of 10,000 psf. For a 250 mil geonet, Table B-2 gives a creep
reduction factor of 1.33. Use default values of RFCC and RFBC from Table 4.4 of 2 and
1.3, respectively. Substituting these values in the above equation results in the allowable
value of transmissivity, allow, equal to 2x10-4 m2/sec. Compare this value of allowable
transmissivity with the transmissivity curves in Figure A-6. The 100-hour
transmissivity, 100, is equal to 2x10-4 m2/sec. Therefore, the product meets the
hydraulic requirements.
It is necessary now to compare the structural strength of the 250 mil geonet against the
maximum overburden stress during the life of the landfill. The maximum overburden
stress is expected to be equal to 200x100 = 20,000 psf. According to Equation 4.25, the
compressive strength of the product must be equal to twice this value, i.e., 40,000 psf. A
250 mil geonet has compression strength of only around 15,000 psf. Therefore, an
alternative to 250 mil geonet is required that would have adequate compression strength
for this problem. That alternative is provided by GSE PermaNet UL drainage
geocomposite.
Example 3
Determine the maximum compression strength required for the drainage core of a
geocomposite that is intended to be used for a landfill cell with a maximum height of
250 ft. Assume a waste density of 75 lbs/ft3. Also, determine the creep reduction factor
for the core at the maximum landfill stress.
6-21
Solution Maximum overburden stress on the geocomposite will be equal to 250 ft x

75 lbs/ft3 = 18,750 lbs/ft2. The compression strength of the geonet core being used in
the product should be equal to twice this value of stress or 37,500 psf. PermaNet UL
geonet manufactured by GSE has a compression strength of 40,000 psf. As such, the
PermaNet UL geonet core must be used in the drainage geocomposite.
The creep reduction factor must be determined at the actual stress 18,750 psf that the
geocomposite is required to resist. Table B-4 shows a creep reduction factor of 1.34 at
15,000 psf and 1.76 at 25,000 psf. Utilize a value of 1.5 for creep reduction factor for
calculations of transmissivity.
6.4 Leakage Detection Design

approving a geocomposite for use in the LDS of a landfill. The process typically
involves the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Establish design input flow rate (i.e., impingement rate, qi)
Establish minimum specified transmissivity, allow
The design of the LDS must satisfy two distinct requirements. The first is to maintain
unconfined flow within the geocomposite. The second is to show that a leak entering
the LDS will make its way to the sump within a specified timeframe. This second
requirement will be referred to as the rapid detection requirement. Since each of the
requirements involves a different set of input parameters and equations to solve for the
required transmissivity, they will be discussed separately in the following step-by-step
discussion.
geometric input parameters.
Based on Unconfined Flow Requirement
Slope of cell-floor, cell-floor = 2.577 degrees (Scell-floor = 0.045; from design

drawing Figure 6.8)
Drainage length on cell-floor, Lcell-floor = 80m (from design drawings)
6-22
Slope of sideslope, sideslope = 18.43 degrees (Ssideslope = 0.333; from design

drawing Figure 6.8)
Drainage length on sideslope, Lsideslope = 20m (from design drawings)
Ltotal = 80 + 20m = 100 m
Cell area, A = 40,000 m2 (from design drawings)
Unit weight of waste, waste = 80 pcf (typically ranges from 60 to 90 pcf; chosen
based on historical waste placement records for similar landfill with similar
anticipated waste stream)
Thickness of waste, twaste = 150 ft (from design drawings for max. thickness of
waste)
Hole size, a = 3.1 mm2 (typical, based on literature review)
Hole frequency, f = 1/4,000 m2 (typical, based on literature review)
Figure 6.8. Schematic of simplified design for example problem.
Permeability of soil component of composite liner, ks = 3 x 10-11 m/s (Typical

value for a GCL from HELP Manual)
Based on Rapid Detection Requirement
Porosity of corridor, nc = 0.35 (typically gravel ranges from 0.25 to 0.4)

Porosity of drainage layer, nd = 0.6 (assumed)
6-23
Length of corridor flow path, Lc = 60 m (from design drawing Figure 6.8)

Length of drainage layer flow path, Ld = 100 m (from design drawing Figure
6.8)
Gradient of corridor, ic = 0.045 (from design drawing Figure 6.8)
Gradient of drainage layer, id = 0.06 (from design drawing Figure 6.8)
Permeability of corridor, kc = 0.1 cm/s = 0.001 m/s (based on gravel lower
bound)
Thickness of drainage layer, td = 6 mm = 0.006 m (based on product thickness)
Detection time, TD = 1 week = 604,800 sec (based on federal regulations;
State/Local regulations may specify shorter time frame)
Step 2 Establish input flow rate

For cases where it is anticipated that good contact will exist between the geomembrane
and the underlying material in the composite liner (i.e., compacted clay or GCL), then
the following equation applies (must use SI units shown below the equation):
Q = C 1 + 0.1(hw / t ) 0.95 . hw
0.9
. a 0.1 . k s
0.74
where:
C = constant (0.21 for good contact; 1.15 for poor contact);
t = GCL thickness (m) = 5 mm = 0.005 m;
Q = leakage rate (m3/sec);
hw = depth of leachate on top of the geomembrane = 0.005 m;
a = geomembrane hole area (m2); and
ks = hydraulic conductivity of the soil component (m/s).
The depth of water (hw) in the above equation is equal to the depth of the drainage layer.
For the geocomposite drainage layer this is equal to the depth of the geocomposite if
unconfined flow is assumed, as it is in design calculations presented here. The
maximum regulatory prescribed depth of 1 foot (0.6 m) can be allowed if the same
depth granular drainage layer is utilized.
The equation defines the leakage rate for each hole. This should be multiplied by the
number of holes per unit area in order to get the total leakage rate per unit area. This
result plus the water anticipated from the consolidation of the compacted clay (if
applicable) will define the anticipated impingement rate (qi).
Consolidation water need not be computed, since the upper composite liner utilizes
a GCL. For this calculation, it is assumed that good contact will exist between the
geomembrane and GCL.
Q = 0.21 1.1.(0.005 m) 0.9 (3.1 x 10 6 m 2 ) 0.1 (3 x 10 11 m/s) 0.74
Q = 9 x 10-12 m3/sec
6-24
qi = Q * f
qi = 9 x 10-12 m3/sec * 1/4,000 m2
qi = 2.0 x 10-15 m/sec = 2.0 x 10-13 cm/sec
= 2 x 10-4 gal/acre/day (Very small; less than 1 gal/yr for 10 acres)

Based on Unconfined Flow Criteria
Using Girouds Simplified equation, solve for the required transmissivity of the
geocomposite, req.
req =
qi L
sin
req =
2
2.0x10 15 m/sec 100m
= 3.4x10 12 m
sec
0.045
Based on Rapid Detection requirement
Solve for the required geocomposite transmissivity to enable liquid entering the LDS
from the furthest point on the cell to be detected in the LDS sump in an acceptable
period of time.
req =
n d Ld td
n L
id TD c c
k c ic
req =
2
0.6 100 m 0.006 m
= 4.3x10 5 m
sec
0.35 60 m
0.06 604,800 sec

0.001 m/sec 0.045
Choose Value for Design
Select the req based on the largest value of: (i) the impingement rate requirement; (ii)
the rapid detection requirement; and (iii) prescribed minimum value from regulations.
Federal regulations prescribe a minimum transmissivity value of 3x10-5 m2/sec. The
designer should check whether state and local regulations specify a required minimum
geocomposite transmissivity.
6-25
req = 4.3x10-5 m2/sec (chose largest value of the three required values).
Step 4 Establish Specified Transmissivity
The above value of required transmissivity must be increased to account for
uncertainties (in the form of an overall factor of safety) and the future reduction of the
transmissivity of the geocomposite over the long-term due to anticipated environmental
allow = req * RFCC * RFBC * FSD * RFCR

RFCC = 1.3 (see Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.1 to 1.5 based on leachate/waste
characteristics)
RFBC = 1.1(ranges from 1.1 to 1.3 based on anticipated biological growth
environment; refer to Table 4.4 for guidance)
FSD = 2.0 (range from 2.0 to 3.0)
RFCR = depends on load = Contact manufacturer = (1.3 to 2.0, see Appendix B
and select a creep reduction factor at 12,000 psf)
allow = 4.3 x 10-5 m2/sec * 1.3 * 1.1 * 2.0 * 1.3

= 1.6 x 10-4 m2/sec

The compression strength of the geonet must be twice the overburden stress, i.e., 24,000
psf according to Equation 4.25. As such, a product like GSE HyperNet UF would be
suitable.
A product with a core having a compression strength of more than 24,000 psf, creep
reduction actor of 1.3 at 12,000 psf and a 100-hour transmissivity of more than 1.6x104 m2/sec would be acceptable. The selection of the product must be based on actual test
data either from the manufacturer or from an independent laboratory.
Write specifications based on the example specifications in Appendix D. In addition to
the index properties for the geonet and the geotextile, specify performance requirements
of compression strength, creep resistance and transmissivity.
Define Laboratory Testing Conditions for Transmissivity
The required laboratory testing conditions include: (i) applied stress; (ii) hydraulic
gradient; (iii) boundary conditions; and (iv) seating time.
6-26
Applied Stress The applied stress used in testing should be equal to the maximum
applied stress anticipated in field conditions.
test = twaste * waste
twaste = 140 ft (Use maximum waste thickness and include cover soil thickness)
waste = 75 pcf (Typically ranges from 60 pcf to 90 pcf; choose based on anticipated
waste density for the landfill or based on existing records, if available)
test = 140 ft * 75 pcf = 10,500 psf

Hydraulic Gradient The hydraulic gradient is equal to the slope angle in units of
length/length.
Slope Angle = 0.045 Gradient = 0.05.
Boundary Conditions The term boundary conditions refers to the makeup of the
overlying and underlying materials during testing of the geocomposite. This design
manual follows the guidelines of GRI-GC8 [19097], which requires that the boundary
conditions mimic field conditions. This means that site-specific materials shall be used
wherever possible.
Boundary conditions should mimic actual field conditions. Since the geonet will be
used between an upper GCL and a lower geomembrane, a GCL and a textured
geomembrane (GSE HDT) will be used above and below the geonet, respectively,
for laboratory testing. Both materials to be used in testing the geocomposite should
be provided to the laboratory by the contractor.
Seating Time Seating time affects the amount of creep and intrusion that the
geocomposite undergoes prior to transmissivity testing, which in turn affects the
measured transmissivity of the product. The approach used in this design manual
follows the guidelines of GRI-GC8 [1997], which requires a seating time of at least 100
hours for testing the transmissivity of the geocomposite. A greater seating time is
acceptable; however, this may incur greater testing expense and is not strictly necessary.
As required by GRI-GC8, a seating time of 100-hr will be used for the laboratory
transmissivity testing.
Step 8 Obtain Laboratory Testing Results
6-27
Obtain either independent laboratory test data or manufacturers historical data and
compare it with the project requirements. Ensure that the product being utilized
meets or exceeds the project requirements.
Product acceptability should be verified by the engineer during design as well as
installation phases of the project. During design phase, performance data should be
obtained on several products being considered for the project. During installation phase,
third party independent testing should be performed on the product to verify that it
meets the design properties.
6.5 Final Cover Drainage Design Based on Seepage Analysis

The final cover drainage geocomposite design example in Section 6.1 can be solved
using the seepage force approach, where the controlling factor is the stability of the
final cover system. Note that only the portion with 3H:1V slope is considered since the
top deck area is relatively flat and is typically stable. The process is illustrated in
Section 4.5 and typically involves the following steps:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.

Establish design input flow rate (i.e., impingement rate, qi)
Establish the maximum allowable liquid head above geomembrane
Solve for the equivalent hydraulic conductivity
Solve for the allowable transmissivity
Develop specifications (lab testing conditions and acceptance criteria)
Select an appropriate product
Step 1) or select new product (return to Step 7).

The simplified design shown in Figure 6.1 will be used in selecting the geometric input
parameters. Each of the input parameters is discussed below:
o Slope angle of side-slope, = 18.43 degrees (S = 0.333; from design
drawing Figure 6.1)
o Max horizontal drainage length of side-slope, L = 30m (from design
drawings; distance between benches/ditches; make sure geocomposite
daylights)
o Thickness of cover system, tcover = 2 ft (or 0.61m, from design drawing
Figure 6.1; regulations typically require cover thickness of at least 2 ft)
o Permeability of cover protective soil, kcover = 1 x 10-4 cm/s (should
correspond to soil type that will be used for protective soil)
o Unit weight of cover soil, cover = 110 and 125 pcf (or 17.3 and 19.6
kN/m3 for dry and saturated condition, respectively (should correspond
to soil type that will be used for protective soil)
6-28
o Friction angle of cover soil, cover = 30 degrees (should correspond to

site-specific testing results)
o The most critical interface friction angle, critical = 21 degrees (should
correspond to site-specific and design-specific testing results)
o Thickness of geocomposite drainage layer, Tgeocomposite = 200 mils (or
0.508 cm)
o Minimum FS-value for final cover stability under a seepage (short-term)
condition is 1.10.
Step 2 Establish Design Flow Rate (Impingement Rate, qi)

Assume (conservatively) that infiltration is equal to the cover-soil permeability.
qi = kcover = 1 x 10-4 cm/s
Step 3 Establish the Maximum Allowable Liquid Head above Geomembrane

The maximum allowable liquid head above the final cover geomembrane can be
determined using procedures developed by Koerner and Soong [1997] specifically for
veneer cover situations. The procedures determine the FS-value against veneer slope
instability using Equation 4.32, Section 4.5.
For this example, a back-analysis approach is adopted utilizing Equation 4.32 along
with the design parameter given in this example problem. By varying the amount of
liquid head above the geomembrane (hw), one conducts an iterative process that
searches for the pre-determined FS-value. Once the calculated FS-value converges to
the pre-determined value (1.10 in this case), the search stops and the corresponding hw
value can be considered as the maximum allowable buildup of liquid head above the
geomembrane.
Equation listed in Section 4.5 is used in this analysis:
FS =
b + b 2 4ac
2a
where:
a = WA sin cos U h cos 2 + U h
b = WA sin 2 tan + U h sin cos tan N A cos tan (WP U V ) tan
c = N A sin tan tan
dry (h hw ) (2 H cos (h + hw )) + sat ' d (hw )(2 H cos hw )

sin 2
h cos (2 H cos hw )
Un = w w
sin 2
WA =
6-29
Uh =
WP =
w (hw ) 2
2
dry (h 2 hw 2 ) + sat ' d (hw 2 )
sin 2
U v = U h (cot )
Results of the iterative calculations are summarized below:
hw
(cm)
WA
(kN)
Un
(kN)
Uh
(kN)
WP
(kN)
Uv
(kN)
FS
30.5
326
83.7
0.46
11.1
1.37
97.9
-105
15.8
0.89
18.3
318
50.5
0.16
10.8
0.49
95.4
-114
17.6
1.01
12.2
314
33.8
0.07
10.8
0.22
94.1
-118
18.5
1.07
6.1
309
17.0
0.02
10.7
0.05
92.8
-123
19.4
1.14
8.0
311
22.2
0.03
10.7
0.09
93.2
-121
19.1
1.12
9.0
311
25.0
0.04
10.7
0.12
93.4
-121
19.0
1.11
9.7
312
26.9
0.05
10.7
0.14
936.
-120
18.9
1.10
As indicated in the above table, the iterative process starts with a 50% submergence
ratio in the final cover soil (30.5 cm versus 61 cm) with a corresponding unacceptable
FS-value of 0.89. By gradually decreasing the assumed head on liner (hw) value, one
determines the maximum allowable buildup of liquid head above the geomembrane (hw)
as 9.7 cm that results in a FS = 1.10 (pre-determined target).
The above iterative process is extremely tedious to perform and calculative error is very
likely to happen. Spreadsheet programs (e.g., Excel) with Goal Seek or Solver or
similar features are highly recommended for accurate and reliable results. They,
however, need to be constructed carefully and be properly calibrated with published
results (such as the results presented in this example) before used for routine designs.
Since the resulting head on geomembrane (9.7 cm) is apparently thicker than the typical
geocomposites, the required transmissivity of the drainage geocomposite shall be
determined based on the multi-layered drainage media design procedures presented in
Section 4.5.
Step 4 Solve for the Equivalent Hydraulic Conductivity
Using the procedures presented in Section 4.4 for calculating the equivalent hydraulic
conductivity for multi-layered drainage media, we have the followings:
Maximum allowable head (perpendicular to the slope),
hw = Tgeocomp + Tcov er = 9.7 cm
(from previous step)
6-30
Tgeocomp
= thickness of geocomposite drainage layer (fully submerged)

= 0.508 cm
= thickness of the submerged zone in the cover soil layer
Tcover
= hw - Tgeocomp
= 9.7 0.508
= 9.192 cm
Consequently, the maximum allowable head (measured vertically),
9.7
= cos(18.43) = 10.22 cm
ymax
The following equations, known as the McEnroes 1993 method, can be used to
calculate the maximum head build-up above the final cover geomembrane layer under
the design inflow rate:
If R < 0.25,
y max = LS R RS R S
2
2 12
(1 A 2 R )(1 + A 2 RS )
(1 + A 2 R )(1 A 2 RS )
1 (2 A )
If R = 0.25,
2 R(S 1)
1 2 RS
y max = LS R
exp
1 2R
(1 2 RS )(1 2 R )
If R > 0.25,
y max = LS R RS R 2 S 2
12
1
2 RS 1 1 1 2 R 1
exp tan 1
tan
B
B B
B
where:
L = Maximum horizontal flow length = 30 m
S = Slope in the direction of flow (length/length) = 0.33
The parameters R, A, and B used in the above formulas are defined as:
R = r k eq sin 2
A = (1 4 R )
12
B = (4 R 1)
12
where
r = Inflow rate
6-31
= kcover
= 1 10-4 cm/s (or 86.4 mm/day)
[Note that assuming the inflow rate equates the hydraulic conductivity of the cover soil
is a conservative approach of estimating the incoming flow rate for final cover drainage
layer design.]
= equivalent hydraulic conductivity between the
keq
cover soil and geocomposite
= slope angle
= Tan-1 (0.33) = 0.3218 (rad)
The next step will be an iterative process that varies the hydraulic conductivity of
geocomposite drainage layer (kgeocomp), therfore the equivalent hydraulic conductivity
between the cover soil and geocomposite (keq), until the resulting maximum calculated
head using the McEnroes 1993 method (i.e., ymax calculated) equates the previously
determined maximum allowable head based on stability analysis (i.e., 10.22 cm).
The following given parameters / formulas will be used for iterations:
k geocomp + (k cov er k geocomp )

keq =
(T
2
Tcov
er
+ Tcov er )
geocomp
kgeocomp = hydraulic conductivity of geocomposite drainage layer (to be treated as the

variable input in the iterative process)
kcover = hydraulic conductivity of cover soil = 1 10-4 cm/s
Tgeocomp = 0.508 cm
Tcover = 9.192 cm
Results of the iterative calculations are summarized in the table below:

kgeocomp
(cm/sec)
keq
(cm/sec)
ymax (McEnroe 93)

(cm)
ymax (Target)
(cm)
Comment
0.10
1.03 10-2
81.9
10.22
kgeocom too low
0.50
-2
5.11 10
18.4
10.22
kgeocom too low
0.75
7.66 10-2
12.5
10.22
kgeocom too low
1.00
1.02 10-1
9.5
10.22
kgeocom too high
0.90
9.19 10-2
10.5
10.22
kgeocom too low
0.91
9.29 10-2
10.4
10.22
kgeocom too low
0.92
9.40 10-2
10.2
10.22
Final
6-32
As indicated in the above the table, the required hydraulic conductivity of the
geocomposite drainage layer will be 0.92 cm/sec in order to maintain the head build up
above the geomembrane liner (measured vertically) to be less than 10.22 cm, which in
turn ensures the stability of the final cover system.
Finally, the required transmissivity of the geocomposite can be determined as,
req
0.92 0.2 2.54
100
= 100
5
= 4.67 10 m2/sec
Step 5 Solve for Allowable Transmissivity

The required transmissivity, req, is calculated above is increased to account for
uncertainties (in the form of an overall factor of safety) and the future reduction of the
transmissivity of the geocomposite over the long-term due to anticipated environmental
allow = req* FSD * RFCC * RFBC * RFCR

o FSD = 2.0 (ranges from 2.0 to 3.0)
o RFCC = 1.0 (See Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.0 to 1.2 based on alkalinity of
protective soil; if soil is not alkaline in nature, then this can be ignored
and set equal to 1.0)
o RFBC = 1.2 (See Table 4.4 - ranges from 1.2 to 3.5 based on anticipated
biological growth environment; if proper cover thickness is used
vegetation shouldnt clog the geocomposite and a low-end value can be
used)
o RFCR = 1.1 = see Appendix B = Contact manufacturers of products being
considered.
For side slope,
allow = 4.7 x 10-5 m2/sec * 2.0 * 1.0 * 1.2 * 1.1
= 1.13 x 10-4 m2/sec
Laboratory 100-hour transmissivity test value should be equal to or higher than the
above allowable value.
The subsequent procedures including specification development, product selection,
laboratory testing requirements, and product acceptability determination will remain the
same as what is used in the previous design example.
6-33
References
REFERENCES
AASHTOs National Transportation Product Evaluation Program, (2003), Laboratory Results

of Evaluations of Geotextiles and Geosynthetics, Report NTPEP 137.19 (Nineteenth
Edition).
AASHTO M288-00, Standard Specifications for Geotextile Specifications for Highway
Applications.
Report ASTM D 4716-00, Test Method for Determining the (In-plane) Flow Rate per Unit
Width and Hydraulic Transmissivity of a Geosynthetic Using a Constant Head, 9 p.
Bonaparte, R., Giroud, J.P., and Gross, B.A. (1989), Rates of Leakage through Landfill
Liners, Conference Proceedings, Geosynthetics 89, Vol. 1, San Diego, CA, pp. 18-29.
Bonaparte, R., Daniel, D.E., and Koerner, R.M. (2002), Assessment and Recommendations for
Improving the Performance of Waste Containment Systems, USEPA Report Number
EPA/600R/-02/099.
Daniel, D.E., (1993), Geotechnical Practice for Waste Disposal, Chapman & Hall, pg. 216.
Fayer, M.J. (2000), UNSAT-H Version 3.0: Unsaturated Soil Water and Heat Flow Model,
Theory, User Manual, and Examples, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland,
Washington.
Giroud, J.P., and Perfetti, J., (1977), Classification des textiles et mesure de leurs proprietes en
vue de leur utilisation en geotechnique, Proceedings of the International Conference on the
Use of Fabrics in Geotechnics, Session 8, Paris, April 1977, pp. 345-352.
Giroud, J.P. and Bonaparte, R. (1989b), Leakage Through Liners Constructed with
Geomembranes, Part II: Composite Liners, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 8, No. 4,
pp. 71-111.
Giroud, J.P., Khatami, A., and Badu-Tweneboah, K. (1989c), Evaluation of the Rate of
Leakage through Composite Liners, Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 8, No. 4, pp.
337-340.
Giroud, J.P., Gross, B.A., and Darasse, J. (1992), Flow in Leachate Collection Layers, SteadyState Condition, GeoSyntec Consultants Report, 62 p.
Giroud, J.P. and Houlihan, M.F. (1995), Design of Leachate Collection Layers, Proceedings
Sardinia 95, Fifth International Landfill Symposium, Cagliari, Italy, pp. 613-640.
Giroud, J.P., Bachus, R.C., and Bonaparte, R. (1995), Influence of Water Flow on the Stability
of Geosynthetic-Soil Layered Systems on Slopes, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No.
6, pp. 1149-1180.
Giroud, J.P., Gross, B.A., and Darasse, J. (1996), Flow in Leachate Collection Layers,
GeoSyntec Consultants Report, 62 p.
R-1
References
Giroud, J.P., Zornberg, J.G. and Zhao, A. (2000a), Hydraulic Design of Geosynthetic and
Granular Liquid Collection Layers, Special Issue on Liquid Collection Systems,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 7, Nos. 4-6, pp. 285-380.
Giroud, J.P., Zhao, A. and Bonaparte, R. (2000b), The Myth of Hydraulic Transmissivity
Equivalency Between Geosynthetic and Granular Liquid Collection Layers, Special Issue
on Liquid Collection Systems, Geosynthetics International, Vol. 7, Nos. 4-6, pp. 381-401.
Giroud, J.P., Zhao, A. and Richardson, G.N. (2002), Effect of Thickness Reduction on
Geosynthetic Hydraulic Transmissivity, Special Issue on Liquid Collection Systems,
Geosynthetics International, Vol. 7, Nos. 4-6, pp. 433-452.
Geosynthetic Research Institute (2001), GRI Standard GC8, Standard Guide for
Determination of the Allowable Flow Rate of a Drainage Geocomposite.
Khire, M.V., Benson, C.R. and Bosscher, P.J. (1997), Water Balance Modeling of Earthen
Final Covers at Humid and Semi-Arid Sites.
Khire, M.V., and Haydar, M.M., (2007), Leachate Recirculation in Bioreactor Landfills using
Geocomposite Drainage Materials, Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental
Engineering, ASCE, Volume 133, Issue 2, pp. 166-174.
Koerner, R.M. and Daniel, D.E. (1997), Final Covers for Solid Waste Landfills and
Abandoned Dumps, ASCE Press, New York, 256 p.
Koerner, R.M., (1998) Designing with Geosynthetics, 4th Edition, Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Kothari, V.K., and Das, A., (1991), Compressionla Behavior of Nonwoven Geotextiles,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, pp. 235-253.
Luettich, S.M., Giroud, J.P. and Bachus, R.C. (1992), Geotextile Filter Design Guide,
Geotextiles and Geomembranes, Vol. 11, pp. 355-370.
Luettich, S.M. and Beck, D.E. (1994), Compressive Creep Analyses for Geocomposite
Drainage Products, Fifth International Conference on Geotextiles, Geomembranes and
Related Products, Singapore, pp. 829-832.
McEnroe, B. M. (1989a), Drainage of Landfill Covers and Bottom Liners: Unsteady Case,
Journal of Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.115, No. 6, March/April, pp. 1103-1113.
McEnroe, B. M. (1989b), Steady Drainage of Landfill Covers and Bottom Liners, Journal of
Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.115, No. 6, March/April, pp. 1114-1122.
McEnroe, B. M. (1993), Maximum Saturated Depth over Landfill Liner, Journal of
Environmental Engineering, ASCE, Vol.119, No. 2, March/April, pp. 262-270.
Narejo, D. and Richardson, G.N. (2003), Designing with GRI Standard GC8, Geotechnical
Fabrics Report, August 2003, pp. 20-23.
Narejo, D. & Allen, S., (2004) Using the Stepped Isothermal Method for Geonet Creep
Evaluation. EuroGeo 3, Third European Geosynthetics Conference, Munich, 01-04 March,
2004.
Richardson, G.N., Giroud, J.P. and Zhao, A. (2000), Design of Lateral Drainage Systems for
Landfills, 68 p.
R-2
References
Richardson, G.N., Giroud, J.P. and Zhao, A. (2002a), Lateral Drainage Design Update Part
1, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, January/February 2002, pp. 18-21.
Richardson, G.N., Giroud, J.P. and Zhao, A. (2002b), Lateral Drainage Design Update Part
2, Geotechnical Fabrics Report, March 2002, pp. 12-17.
Schreiner, L.C. and Riedel, J.T. (1978), Probable Maximum Precipitation Estimates, United
States East of the 105th Meridian, Hydrometeorological Report No. 51, U.S. Department of
Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and U.S. Department of the
Army Corps of Engineers, 87 p.
Schroeder, P.R., Dozier, T.S., Zappi, P.A., McEnroe, B.M., Sjostrom, J.W. and Peyton, R.L.
(1994), The Hydrologic Evaluation of Landfill Performance (HELP) Model: Engineering
Documentation for Version 3, EPA/600/R-94/168b, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Reduction Engineering Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Slocumb, R.C., Demeny, D.D. and Christopher, B.R. (1986), Creep Characteristics of
Drainage Nets, Ninth Annual Madison Waste Conference, University of Madison, pp. 658671.
Soong, T.Y., and Koerner, R.M., (1996), Cover Soil Slope Stability Involving Geosynthetic
Interfaces, Geosynthetic Research Institute Report #18.
Soong, T.Y. and Koerner, R.M. (1997), The Design of Drainage Systems over
Geosynthetically Lined Slopes, Geosynthetics Research Institute, Report #19.
Thiel, R.S. and Stewart, M.G. (1993) "Geosynthetic Landfill Cover Design Methodology and
Construction Experience in the Pacific Northwest." Proceedings for Geosynthetics '93 held
in Vancouver, B.C. in April 1993, pp. 1131-1134.
Thiel, R.S. (1999), Design of a Gas Pressure Relief Layer Below a Geomembrane Cover to
Improve Slope Stability, Proceedings Geosynthetics 99, Boston, IFAI, pp. 235-252.
Thiel, R.S. (1998), Design Methodology for a Gas Pressure Relief Layer Below a
Geomembrane Landfill Cover to Improve Slope Stability, Geosynthetics International,
Vol. 5, No. 6, pp. 589-617.
Thornton, J., Allen, S., Siebken, J., (2000), Long Term Compression Creep of High Density
Polyethylene Geonet, Proceedings of EuroGeo 2, 2nd European Geosynthetics Conference.
R-3
Appendix A
APPENDIX A
100-HOUR TRANSMISSIVITY DATA FOR VARIOUS GSE
PRODUCTS
Please use the table below as a shortcut to find the proper GSE drainage products and related
Transmissivity performance graphs.
DESIGN
LOADING
RECOMMENDED
GSE PRODUCT
Up to 5,000 psf
100-HOUR TRANSMISSIVITY DATA

At Various Boundary Conditions
Geomembrane
Geonet
Geomembrane
Geomembrane
Geocomposite
Geomembrane
Soil
Geocomposite
Geomembrane
200 mil FabriNet
See Figure A-1
See Figure A-2
See Figure A-3
Up to 10,000 psf
250 mil FabriNet HF
See Figure A-4
See Figure A-5
See Figure A-6
Up to 15,000 psf
300 mil FabriNet UF
See Figure A-7
See Figure A-8
See Figure A-9
Up to 15,000 psf
FabriNet TRx
N/A
N/A
See Figure A-10
Up to 20,000 psf
PermaNet TRx
N/A
N/A
See Figure A-11
Up to 25,000 psf
PermaNet HL
See Figure A-12
See Figure A-13
See Figure A-14
25,000 psf & Above
PermaNet UL
See Figure A-15
See Figure A-16
See Figure A-17
N/A = not available, please contact GSE with specific design conditions.
A-1
Appendix A
Boundary Condition = Geomembrane/Geonet/Geomembrane

1.00E-02
Transmissivity (m^2/sec)
Se at Time = 100 hours
1,000 psf
1.00E-03
5,000 psf
10,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-1. Performance Transmissivity of a 200 mil GSE HyperNet geonet.
200 mil FabriNet Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

Boundary Condition = Geomembrane/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.00E-03
Seat Time = 100 hours
1,000 psf
5,000 psf
1.00E-04
10,000 psf
1.00E-05
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-2 Performance Transmissivity of a 200 mil FabriNet Geocomposite between Plates.
A-2
Appendix A
200 mil FabriNet Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

Boundary Condition = Soil/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.00E-03
1,000 psf
1.00E-04
5,000 psf
10,000 psf
1.00E-05
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-3. Performance Transmissivity of a 200 mil FabriNet Geocomposite under Soil.
Boundary Conditions = Geomembrane/Geonet/Geomembrane
1.0E-02
Test Time = 100 hours
1,000 psf
10,000 psf
1.0E-03
15,000 psf
1.0E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-4. Performance Transmissivity of a 250 mil GSE HyperNet HF geonet.
A-3
Appendix A
250 mil Double-sided Composite with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

Boundary Conditions = Geomembrane/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.0E-03
1,000 psf
10,000 psf
15,000 psf
1.0E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-5. Performance Transmissivity of a 250 mil GSE HyperNet HF geonet between Plates.

Boundary Conditions = Soil/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.0E-02
1.0E-03
1,000 psf
10,000 psf
1.0E-04
15,000 psf
1.0E-05
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-6. Performance Transmissivity of a 250 mil GSE FabriNet HF geocomposite under
Sand.
A-4
Appendix A
Boundary Conditions = Geomembrane/Geonet/Geomembrane
1.0E-02
1,000 psf
10,000 psf
15,000 psf
1.0E-03
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-7. Performance Transmissivity of a 300 mil GSE HyperNet UF geonet.
300 mil Double-sided Composite with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextiles

Boundary Conditions = Geomembrane/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.0E-02
1,000 psf
1.0E-03
10,000 psf
15,000 psf
1.0E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-8. Performance Transmissivity of a 300 mil GSE FabriNet UF geocomposite between
Plates.
A-5
Appendix A

Boundary Conditions = Soil/Geocomposite/Geomembrane
1.0E-02
1,000 psf
1.0E-03
10,000 psf
15,000 psf
1.0E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-9. Performance Transmissivity of a 300 mil GSE FabriNet UF geocomposite under
Soil.
FabriNet TRx Double Side Composite with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile
1.00E-02
1,000 psf
10,000 psf
1.00E-03
15,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-10. Performance Transmissivity of GSE FabriNet TRx geocomposite under Soil.
A-6
Appendix A
PermaNet TRx Double Side Composite with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

1.00E-02
1,000 psf
1.00E-03
10,000 psf
20,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
Gradient
Figure A-11 Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet TRx geocomposite under Soil.

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
20,000 psf
30,000 psf
1.00E-03
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-12. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet HL geonet between Plates.
A-7
Appendix A
PermaNet HL Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
1.00E-03
20,000 psf
30,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-13. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet HL geocomposite between Plates.
PermaNet HL Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
1.00E-03
20,000 psf
30,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-14. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet HL geocomposite under Soil.
A-8
Appendix A

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
20,000 psf
30,000 psf
1.00E-03
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-15. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet UL geonet between Plates.
PermaNet UL Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
20,000 psf
1.00E-03
30,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-16. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet UL geocomposite between Plates.
A-9
Appendix A
PermaNet UL Geocomposite Double-sided with 6 or 8 oz. Geotextile

1.00E-02
10,000 psf
1.00E-03
20,000 psf
30,000 psf
1.00E-04
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Gradient
Figure A-17. Performance Transmissivity of GSE PermaNet UL geocomposite under Soil.
A-10
Appendix B
APPENDIX B
CREEP TEST DATA FOR SELECTED GSE PRODUCTS
Please use the table below as a shortcut to find the proper GSE drainage products and related
long term creep test performance graphs.
DESIGN LOADING
RECOMMENDED
GSE PRODUCT
CREEP TEST DATA
Up to 5,000 psf
200 mil FabriNet
See Figure B-1
Up to 10,000 psf
250 mil FabriNet HF
See Figure B-2
Up to 15,000 psf
300 mil FabriNet UF
See Figure B-3
Up to 15,000 psf
FabriNet TRx
See Note
Up to 20,000 psf
PermaNet TRx
See Figure B-4
Up to 25,000 psf
PermaNet HL
See Figure B-5
25,000 psf & Above
PermaNet UL
See Figure B-6
Note: Long term creep data not available. Typical creep performance of FabriNet TRx should be close to
FabriNet UF data (Figure B-3). Please contact GSE with specific design conditions.
B-1
Appendix B
Figure B-1. Creep Curves for a 200 mil GSE HyperNet geonet.
Table B-1. Creep Reduction Factors for a 200 mil GSE HyperNet geonet from 100 hours to 50
Years.
Stress (psf)
1,000
5,000
Creep Reduction Factor

1.01
1.10
B-2
Appendix B
Figure B-2. Creep Curves for a 250 mil GSE HyperNet HF geonet.
Table B-2. Creep Reduction Factors for a 250 mil GSE HyperNet HF geonet from 100 hours to
50 Years.
Stress (psf)
1,000
5,000
10,000

1.01
1.13
1.33
B-3
Appendix B
Figure B-3. Creep Curves for a 300 mil GSE HyperNet UF geonet.
Table B-3. Creep Reduction Factors for a 300 mil GSE HyperNet UF geonet from 100 hours to
50 Years.
Stress (psf)
1,000
5,000
15,000

1.00
1.06
1.19
B-4
Appendix B
Figure B-4. Creep Curves for GSE PermaNet TRx geonet at 1,000 psf and 15,000 psf.
Table B-4. Creep Reduction Factors for GSE PermaNet TRx geonet from 100 hours to 50 Years.
Stress (psf)
1,000
15,000

1.02
1.12
B-5
Appendix B
Figure B-5. Creep Curves for GSE PermaNet HL geonet at 15,000 psf and 25,000 psf.
Table B-5. Creep Reduction Factors for GSE PermaNet HL geonet from 100 hours to 50 Years.
Stress (psf)
15,000
25,000

1.12
1.16
B-6
Appendix B
Figure B-6. Creep Curves for GSE PermaNet UL geonet at 15,000 psf and 25,000 psf.
Table B-6. Creep Reduction Factors for GSE PermaNet UL geonet at 15,000 and 25,000 psf.
Stress (psf)
15,000
25,000

1.10
1.14
B-7
Appendix C
APPENDIX C
EXAMPLE GEONET SPECIFICATIONS
The following specifications have been prepared to provide examples for Engineers
preparing construction documents that include Geonets. These specifications are
NOT STANDARD and do not include all geosynthetic materials available. They are
presented in Construction Specifications Institute (CSI) format, but they do not
include a Measurement and Payment Section.
THE READER IS CAUTIONED TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW AND
APPROPRIATELY REVISE EACH SPECIFICATION SECTION. SPECIFIC
ITEMS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED TO ASSIST THE ENGINEER, BUT
THESE HIGHLIGHTS ARE NOT THE LIMIT OF POTENTIAL CHANGES
NECESSARY FOR YOUR SPECIFIC PROJECT. THE READER MAY COPY
THESE SPECIFICATIONS AND REVISE THEM AS APPROPRIATE FOR A
SPECIFIC PROJECT.
C-1
Appendix C
SECTION 02073
GEONET
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SCOPE OF WORK
A. CONTRACTOR shall furnish all geonet, labor, incidental materials, tools, supervision,
transportation, and installation equipment necessary for the installation of the geonet, as
specified herein, as shown on the Drawings, and in accordance with the Construction
Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
B. CONTRACTOR shall furnish and/or install geonet in conjunction with other
components of the work.
C. CONTRACTOR shall install all geonet and shall be responsible for field handling,
storing, deploying, connecting, temporary restraining, anchoring, and other aspects of
geonet installation.
1.02 REFERENCES
A.
The most recent versions of the following standards:

ASTM D792
Displacement
Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Plastics by
ASTM D1505
Technique
Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the Density-Gradient
ASTM D1603
Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics
ASTM D4218
Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Black Content in
Polyethylene Compounds by Muffle-Furnace Technique
ASTM D4716
Standard Test Method for Constant Head Hydraulic Transmissivity
(In-Place Flow) of Geotextiles and Geotextile Related Products
ASTM D5199
Geosynthetics
Standard Test Method for Measuring Nominal Thickness of
ASTM D5261
Geotextiles
Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass per Unit Area of
B. CQA Plan
C. Construction Drawings
C-2
Appendix C
1.03 QUALIFICATIONS
A. The Geonet Manufacturer shall have successfully manufactured a minimum of
20,000,000 ft2 of the same type of geonet as specified for this Project.
B. The Geonet Manufacturer shall have sufficient manufacturing capacity and qualified
personnel to meet the requirements of this Section and the demands (e.g., quantity
production and quality control) of this Project.
1.04 SUBMITTALS
A. At least 14 days prior to shipping any geonet to the Site, CONTRACTOR/
Geosynthetics Installer shall provide ENGINEER with the following documentation on
the Geonet Manufacturer that will supply the geonet.
1. Manufacturing capabilities, including:
a. daily production quantity available for this Contract;
b. manufacturing quality control procedures; and
c. list of material properties, including certified test results, with attached
samples.
2. Origin (resin suppliers name, resin production plant) and identification (brand
name, number) of the resin.
B. At least 14 days prior to shipping any geonet to the Site, CONTRACTOR/ Geosynthetic
Installer shall provide ENGINEER with the following documentation on the resin used
to manufacture the geonet.
1. Copies of quality control certificates issued by the resin supplier including the
production dates, brand name, and origin of the resin used to manufacture the
geonet for the project.
2. Certification that no reclaimed polymer is added to the resin during the
manufacturing of the geonet to be used for this project, or, if recycled polymer is
used, then the Geonet Manufacturer shall submit a certificate signed by the
production manager documenting the quantity of recycled material, including a
description of the procedure used to measure the quantity of recycled polymer.
C. Prior to shipping the geonet rolls, CONTRACTOR/ Geosynthetic Installer shall provide
ENGINEER with the following documentation on geonet roll production.
1. Manufacturing certificates for each shifts production of geonet, signed by
responsible parties employed by the Geonet Manufacturer (such as the production
manager).
2. The quality control certificate shall include:
a. roll numbers and identification; and
b. results of quality control tests, including descriptions of the test methods used.
3. The Geonet Manufacturer quality control tests to be performed are outlined in Part
2.02 of this Section.
C-3
Appendix C
1.05 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE

A. The installation of the geonet shall be monitored by the CQA Consultant as outlined in
the CQA Plan.
B. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer shall be aware of the activities outlined in the
CQA Plan and shall account for these CQA activities in the installation schedule.
C. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer shall provide opportunity for the CQA
Consultant to obtain conformance samples at the manufacturing facility to expedite
conformance testing and material approval.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01 GEONET PROPERTIES
A. The Manufacturer shall furnish geonet having properties that comply with the required
property values shown in Table 02073-1.
B. In addition to documentation of the property values listed in Table 02073-1, the geonet
shall contain a maximum of one percent by weight of additives, fillers, or extenders (not
including carbon black) and shall not contain foaming agents or voids within the ribs of
the geonet.
2.02 MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL
A. The geonet shall be manufactured with quality control procedures that meet or exceed
generally accepted industry standards.
B. Any geonet sample that does not comply with the Specifications will result in rejection
of the roll from which the sample was obtained. The Geonet Manufacturer shall replace
any rejected rolls at no cost to OWNER.
C. If a geonet sample fails to meet the quality control requirements of this Section, then the
Geonet Manufacturer will sample and test each roll manufactured, in the same lot, or at
the same time, as the failing roll. Sampling and testing of rolls shall continue until a
pattern of acceptable test results is established.
D. Additional sample testing may be performed, at the Geonet Manufacturers discretion
and expense, to more closely identify any non-complying rolls and/or to qualify
individual rolls.
E. Sampling shall, in general, be performed on sacrificial portions of the geonet material
such that repair is not required. The Manufacturer shall sample and test the geonet at
test frequencies provided in Table 02073-1 to demonstrate that its properties conform to
the values specified therein.
C-4
Appendix C
F. At a minimum, the tests listed in Table 02073-1 shall be performed.

G. The performance hydraulic transmissivity test (ASTM D 4716) in Table 02073-1 need
not be performed at a frequency of one per project. However, the Geonet Manufacturer
will certify that this test has been performed on a sample of geonet identical to the
product that will be delivered to the Site under test conditions exactly as for the project.
The Geonet Manufacturer shall provide test results as part of his quality control
documentation.
H. The Geonet Manufacturer shall comply with the certification and submittal
requirements of this Section.
2.03 LABELING
A. Geonet shall be supplied in rolls wrapped in protective covers and labeled with the
following information:
1. manufacturers name;
2. product identification;
3. lot number;
4. roll number; and
5. roll dimensions.
2.04 TRANSPORTATION
A. Transportation of the geonet shall be the responsibility of the Geonet Manufacturer.
The Geonet Manufacturer shall be liable for all damages to the materials incurred prior
to and during transportation to the Site.
B. Geonet shall be delivered to the Site at least seven days before the scheduled date of
deployment to allow the CQA Consultant adequate time to inventory the geonet rolls
and obtain additional conformance samples, if needed. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic
Installer shall notify the CQA Consultant a minimum of 24 hours prior to any delivery.
2.05 HANDLING AND STORAGE
A. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer shall be responsible for handling, storage, and
care of the geonet prior to and following installation at the Site. CONTRACTOR/
Geosynthetic Installer shall be liable for all damages to the materials incurred prior to
final acceptance of the geonet drainage layer by the CQA Consultant.
B. The geonet shall be stored off the ground and out of direct sunlight, and shall be
protected from mud, dirt, and dust. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer shall be
responsible for implementing any additional storage procedures required by the Geonet
Manufacturer.
C-5
Appendix C
2.06 CONFORMANCE TESTING

A. Conformance testing, if required, shall be performed in accordance with the CQA Plan.
CONTRACTOR shall assist the CQA Consultant in obtaining conformance samples, if
requested. The CQA Consultant has the option of collecting samples at the
manufacturing facility.
B. Passing results are required before any geonet is deployed.
C. Samples shall be taken at a minimum frequency as per Table 02073-1 with a minimum
frequency as per Table 02073-1 or minimum of one sample per lot. If the Geonet
Manufacturer provides material that requires sampling at a significantly higher
frequency, then CONTRACTOR /Geosynthetic Installer shall pay the cost for all
additional testing.
D. The CQA Consultant may increase the frequency of sampling in the event that test
results do not comply with the requirements of Part 2.01 of this Section until passing
conformance test results are obtained for all material that is received at the Site. This
additional testing shall be performed at the expense of CONTRACTOR/ Geosynthetic
Installer.
E. Any geonet that is not certified in accordance with Part 1.05 of this Section, or that
conformance testing indicates do not comply with Part 2.01 of this Section, will be
rejected by the CQA Consultant. The Geonet Manufacturer shall replace the rejected
material with new material, at no additional cost to OWNER.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 HANDLING AND PLACEMENT
A. The geonet shall be handled in such a manner as to ensure they are not damaged in any
way.
B. Precautions shall be taken to prevent damage to underlying layers during placement of
the geonet.
C. The geonet shall be installed in a manner that minimizes wrinkles.
D. Care shall be taken during placement of geonet to prevent dirt or excessive dust in the
geonet that could cause clogging and/or damage of the adjacent materials.
E. Tools or sandbags shall not be left on the geonet.
3.02 STACKING AND TYING
A. When a geonet layer is placed on top of another geonet layer, care should be taken to
prevent the strands of one layer from penetrating the channels of the underlying layer.
C-6
Appendix C
B. Unless otherwise specified by ENGINEER, geonet shall not be stacked in a direction

perpendicular to an underlying geonet.
C. Adjacent panels of geonet shall be overlapped by at least 4 in. These overlaps shall be
secured by tying.
D. Tying shall be achieved by plastic fasteners or polymer braid. Tying devices shall be
white or yellow for easy inspection. Metallic devices shall not be used.
E. Tying shall be performed at a minimum interval of every 5 ft. along the geonet roll edge
and 2 ft. along the geonet roll ends.
F. When a geonet layer is installed over another geonet layer, ties shall be staggered at
least 1 ft. apart.
3.03 REPAIR
A. Any holes or tears in the geonet shall be repaired by placing a patch extending 1 ft.
beyond the edges of the hole or tear. The patch shall be placed under the panel and
secured to the original geonet by tying every 6 in. with approved tying devices. If the
hole or tear width across the roll is more than 50 percent of the width of the roll, then
the damaged area shall be cut out and the two portions of the geonet shall be joined in
accordance with the requirements of Part 3.02 of this Section.
3.04 PLACEMENT OF SOIL MATERIALS
A. Soil shall not be placed in direct contact with geonet. Geonet shall be separated from
soil materials by a geomembrane or a geotextile.
3.05 PRODUCT PROTECTION
A. CONTRACTOR shall use all means necessary to protect all prior Work, and all
materials and completed Work of other Sections.
B. In the event of damage, CONTRACTOR shall immediately make all repairs.
C-7
Appendix C
TABLE 02073-1
REQUIRED GEONET PROPERTY VALUES
PROPERTIES
lb/inch
kPa
TEST
METHOD
ASTM D5199
ASTM D792 or
D1505
ASTM D1603 or
D4218
ASTM D5035
ASTM D1621
1/50,000 ft2
1/100,000 ft2
Minimum
gal/ft/min
ASTM D4716
1/540,000 ft2
Minimum
m2/sec
ASTM D4716
1 per project or
accept
manufacturers
certification
QUALIFIERS
UNITS
Thickness
Resin Density
MARV
MARV
mils
g/cc
Carbon Black
Content
Tensile Strength
Compression
Strength
Index
Transmissivity(1, 2)
Performance
Transmissivity(3,4.5)
Range
MARV
MARV
SPECIFIED
VALUES
Frequency
1/50,000 ft2
1/50,000 ft2
1/50,000 ft2
Notes:
1. Transmissivity shall be measured using water at 68F with a gradient of 0.1 under a confining
pressure of 10,000 lb/ft2. The geonet shall be placed in the testing device between two steel
plates. Measurements are taken 15 minutes after application of confining pressure.
2. List the manufacturers published value for the index transmissivity.
3. This transmissivity value is to be obtained with 100-hour testing using site-specific boundary
conditions.
4. This test is not required if the product to be used is a geocomposite.
5. List the value in the 4th column as per project specifications based on design calculations.
C-8
Appendix D
APPENDIX D
EXAMPLE GEOCOMPOSITE SPECIFICATIONS
The following specifications have been prepared to provide examples for

Engineers preparing construction documents that include drainage geocomposites.
These specifications are NOT STANDARD and do not include all geosynthetic
materials available. They are presented in Construction Specifications Institute
(CSI) format, but they do not include a Measurement and Payment Section.
THE READER IS CAUTIONED TO THOROUGHLY REVIEW AND
APPROPRIATELY REVISE EACH SPECIFICATION SECTION. SPECIFIC
ITEMS HAVE BEEN HIGHLIGHTED TO ASSIST THE ENGINEER, BUT
THESE HIGHLIGHTS ARE NOT THE LIMIT OF POTENTIAL CHANGES
NECESSARY FOR YOUR SPECIFIC PROJECT. THE READER MAY COPY
THESE GEOSYNTHTETIC SPECIFICATIONS AND REVISE THEM AS
APPROPRIATE FOR A SPECIFIC PROJECT.
D-1
Appendix D
SECTION 02620
GEOCOMPOSITE
PART 1 GENERAL
1.01 SCOPE OF WORK
A. CONTRACTOR shall furnish all labor, materials, tools, supervision, transportation,
and equipment necessary for the installation of the geocomposite drainage layer as
specified herein, as shown on the Drawings, and in accordance with the Construction
Quality Assurance (CQA) Plan.
B. The Geosynthetics Installer shall be prepared to install the geocomposite drainage
layer in conjunction with earthworks and other components of the liner system.
1.02 REFERENCES
A. The most recent versions of the following standards:
ASTM D 792
by Displacement
Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity and Density of Plastics
ASTM D 1505
Standard Test Method for Density of Plastics by the DensityGradient Technique
ASTM D 1603
Standard Test Method for Carbon Black in Olefin Plastics
ASTM D 4218
Standard Test Method for Determination of Carbon Black Content in
Polyethylene Compounds by Muffle-Furnace Technique
ASTM D 4491
Permeability
Standard Test Method for Water Permeability of Geotextiles by
ASTM D 4632
Standard Test Method for Breaking Load and Elongation of
Geotextiles (Grab Method)
ASTM D 4716
Standard Test Method for Constant Head Hydraulic Transmissivity
(In-Place Flow) of Geotextiles and Geotextile Related Products
ASTM D 4751
Geotextile
Standard Test Method for Determining Apparent Opening Size of
ASTM D 4833
Standard Test Method for Index Puncture Resistance of Geotextiles,
Geomembranes, and Related Products
D-2
Appendix D
ASTM D 5199
Geosynthetics
Standard Test Method for Measuring Nominal Thickness of
ASTM D 5261
Geotextiles
Standard Test Method for Measuring Mass Per Unit Area of
ASTM D 5321
Standard Test Method for Determining the Coefficient of Soil and
Geosynthetic or Geosynthetic and Geosynthetic Friction by the Direct Shear Method
ASTM D7005
Standard Test Method for Determining the Bond Strength (Ply
Adhesion) of Geocomposites
Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) Test GC-7 Determination of Adhesion and Bond
Strength of Geocomposites
Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) Test GC-8 Determination
Flow rate of a Drainage Geocomposite
of the
Allowable
B. CQA Plan
C. Construction Drawings
1.03 SUBMITTALS
A. Prior to transporting any geocomposite to the Site, CONTRACTOR shall submit the
following documentation on the raw materials used to manufacture the geocomposite
to ENGINEER.
1. Copies of quality control certificates issued by the raw material supplier including
the production dates of the raw material and the origin of the raw materials used
to manufacture geocomposite for the project.
2. Results of tests conducted by the Manufacturer to verify the quality of the resin
used to manufacture the geocomposite rolls assigned to the project and the origin
of the resin, along with quality control certificates issued by the resin supplier.
3. Certification that no reclaimed polymer is added to the resin during the
manufacture of the geocomposite to be used in this project.
4. Results of the products hydraulic transmisivity as measured using the GRI GC-8
method.
B. CONTRACTOR shall submit to ENGINEER the following information on
geocomposite production prior to the shipment of the geocomposite rolls.
1. Manufacturing quality control certificates for each shifts production signed by
responsible parties employed by the Manufacturer (such as the production
manager).
2. The quality control certificate shall include:
a. roll numbers and identification; and
b. results of quality control tests, including descriptions of test methods used.
D-3
3.
Appendix D
The Manufacturer quality control tests to be performed are outlined in Part 2.03 of
this Section.
1.04 CONSTRUCTION QUALITY ASSURANCE

A. The installation of the geocomposites shall be monitored by the CQA Consultant as
outlined in the CQA Plan.
B. CONTRACTOR shall be aware of the activities outlined in the CQA Plan and shall
account for these CQA activities in the installation schedule.
PART 2 PRODUCTS
2.01 GEOCOMPOSITE MATERIAL
A. The geocomposite shall be composed of a high density polyethylene drainage net with
a nonwoven, needlepunched geotextile bonded to each side of the drainage net. The
geotextile shall not be glued or bonded to the geonet in any manner other than heat
bonding. Along edges, approximately six inches of the geotextile shall not be heat
bonded to the geonet to allow connection in the field.
2.02 GEOCOMPOSITE MATERIAL PROPERTIES
A. The Manufacturer shall furnish geocomposite having material properties that comply
with the required property values shown in Table 02620-1. The Manufacturer shall
provide test results for these procedures, as well as a certification that the materials
meet or exceed the specified values.
B. In addition to the property values listed in Table 02620-1, the geocomposite shall be
chemically inert when immersed in a leachate representative of that from a typical
landfill. The geonet shall contain a maximum of one percent by weight of additives,
fillers, or extenders (not including carbon black) and shall not contain foaming agents
or voids within the ribs of the geonet.
2.03 MANUFACTURING QUALITY CONTROL
A. The geocomposite shall be manufactured with quality control procedures that meet
generally accepted industry standards.
B. The Manufacturer shall sample and test the geocomposite to demonstrate that the
material complies with the Specifications.
C. Any geocomposite sample that does not comply with the Specifications will result in
rejection of the roll from which the sample was obtained. The Manufacturer shall
replace any rejected rolls at no additional cost to OWNER.
D-4
Appendix D
D. If a geocomposite sample fails to meet the quality control requirements of this Section,
then the Geocomposite Manufacturer shall sample and test each roll manufactured in
the same lot, or at the same time, as the failing roll. Sampling and testing of rolls shall
continue until a pattern of acceptable test results is established.
E. Additional sample testing may be performed, at the Manufacturers discretion and
expense, to more closely identify any non-complying rolls and/or to qualify individual
rolls.
F. Sampling shall, in general, be performed on sacrificial portions of the geocomposite
material such that repair is not required. The Manufacturer shall sample and test the
geocomposite as per Table 02620-1.
G. The Manufacturer shall provide test results to the CQA Consultant demonstrating that
the Manufacturer performed the tests and that acceptable results were obtained.
2.04 LABELING
A. Geocomposite material shall be supplied in rolls wrapped in waterproof and opaque
protective covers.
B. Geocomposite rolls shall be labeled with the following information:
1. Manufacturers name;
2. product identification;
3. lot number;
4. roll number; and
5. roll dimensions.
2.05 TRANSPORTATION
A. Transportation of the geocomposite material shall be the responsibility of the
Manufacturer. The Manufacturer shall be liable for all damages to the materials
incurred prior to and during transportation to the Site. CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic
Installer shall notify the Site a minimum of 24 hours prior to any delivery.
2.06 HANDLING AND STORAGE
A. Handling, storage, and care of the geocomposite material prior to and following
installation at the Site, is the responsibility of the Geosynthetics Installer. The
Geosynthetics Installer shall be liable for all damages to the materials incurred prior to
final acceptance of the lining system by the CQA Consultant.
B. The Geosynthetics Installer shall be responsible for storage of the geocomposite
material at the Site. The geocomposite material shall be stored off the ground and out
of direct sunlight, and shall be protected from mud, dirt, and dust. Any additional
D-5
Appendix D
storage procedures required by the Manufacturer shall be the Geosynthetics Installers

responsibility.
2.07 CONFORMANCE TESTING
A. Conformance testing, if required, shall be performed in accordance with the CQA
Plan. CONTRACTOR shall assist the CQA Consultant in obtaining conformance
samples, if requested. The CQA Consultant has the option of collecting samples at the
manufacturing facility.
B. Samples shall be taken at a minimum frequency as listed in Table 02620-1. If
CONTRACTORs/Geosynthetic Installers supplier provides material that requires
sampling at a frequency (due to lot size, shipment size, etc.) significantly higher than
that specified herein, then CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer shall pay the cost
for all additional testing.
C. Passing test results are required before deploying any geocomposite.
D. The CQA Consultant will direct CONTRACTOR/Geosynthetic Installer to increase
the frequency of sampling in the event that test results do not comply with the
requirements of Part 2.02 of this Section until passing conformance test results are
obtained for all material that is received at the job site. This additional testing shall be
performed at the expense of the Manufacturer.
PART 3 EXECUTION
3.01 HANDLING AND PLACEMENT
A. The Geosynthetic Installer shall handle all geocomposite material in such a manner
that the geocomposite material is not damaged in any way.
B. The Geosynthetic Installer shall take any necessary precautions to prevent damage to
underlying layers during placement of the geocomposite layers.
C. The Geosynthetic Installer shall ballast the geocomposite layers with sandbags to
prevent displacement of the geocomposite by wind. Such sandbags shall be installed
during placement and shall remain on the geocomposite until it is covered with soil, at
which time they will be removed. Care shall be exercised to prevent the rupture or
damage of the sandbags during their handling.
D. The geocomposite shall be secured in the anchor trench and then rolled down the slope
in such a manner as to continually keep the geocomposite in tension.
E. The geocomposite shall be positioned by hand after being unrolled, to minimize
wrinkles.
D-6
Appendix D
F. During placement of geocomposite material care shall be taken not to trap dirt or
excessive dust in the geonet that could cause clogging of the drainage system, and/or
stones that could damage the adjacent liner.
G. Tools and sand bags shall not be left on or in the geocomposite.
H. After un-wrapping the geocomposite material from its opaque cover, the material shall
not be left exposed for a period in excess of 15 days unless a longer exposure period is
approved by OWNER. Such approval shall be based on a written consent from the
Manufacturer that the geotextile component of the composite is stabilized against
ultraviolet degradation for a period in excess of 15 days.
3.02 SEAMS AND OVERLAPS
A. The components of the geocomposite (i.e., geotextile-geonet-geotextile) are not to be
bonded together at the ends and edges of the rolls. Each component will be secured or
seamed to the like component at overlaps.
B. Geonet Components
1. The geonet components shall be overlapped by at least 4 inches. These overlaps
shall be secured by tying.
2. Tying shall be achieved by plastic fasteners, or polymer braid. Tying devices
shall be white or yellow for easy inspection. Metallic devices shall not be used.
3. Tying shall be every 5 feet along the slope, and every 2 feet on end-to-end seams.
C. Geotextile Components
1. The bottom layers of geotextile shall be overlapped a minimum of 4 inches prior
to seaming. The top layers of geotextiles shall be continuously sewn using Stitch
Type 401 and a flat or single prayer seam (Federal Seam Type SSa), with the
stitching a minimum of 1.5 in. from the edge of the geotextile. Stitching shall
have an average of greater than 5 stitches per inch that will result is a seam
strength greater than or equal to 75 percent of the fabric strength. Where
indicated on the drawings in high stress locations, a J type seam will be required
(Federal Seam Type SSn). Heat-seaming using wedge welding is to be allowed
only if adequate performance is demonstrated by the INSTALLER.
2. Polymeric thread, with chemical resistance properties equal to or exceeding those
of the geotextile component, shall be used for all sewing.
3.03 REPAIR
A. If the geonet is undamaged but the geotextile is damaged, then the Geosynthetic
Installer shall repair the damaged area as follows:
1.
2.
3.
Remove damaged geotextile.

Cut patch of new geotextile to provide minimum 12-inch overlap in all directions.
Thermally bond geotextile patch to existing geocomposite.
D-7
B.
Appendix D
All seams that have no geotextile flaps available for sewing shall be thermally bonded
with patch that extends 1-ft beyond the edges of the panel.
C. Any holes or tears in the geocomposite material shall be repaired by first removing the
damaged portion of the geonet and placing a patch under the panel that extends 0.5 ft
beyond the edges of the hole or tear. The patch shall be secured by tying fasteners
through the patch, and through the panel. The patch shall then be secured every 6
inches with approved tying devices. A geotextile patch shall be heat-sealed to the top
of the geocomposite needing repair. If the hole or tear width across the roll exceeds
50 percent of the width of the roll, then the entire damaged geocomposite panel shall
be removed and replaced.
3.04 PLACEMENT OF SOIL MATERIALS
A. CONTRACTOR shall place all soil materials over geocomposite such that:
1.
2.
3.
the geocomposite and underlying materials are not damaged;

minimal slippage occurs between the geocomposite layer and underlying layers;
and
excess tensile stresses are not produced in the geocomposite.
B. Equipment shall not be driven directly atop the geocomposite drainage layer.
Placement of the cover material shall occur as soon as practicable and shall proceed
from the base of the slope upwards. Unless otherwise specified by ENGINEER, all
equipment operating on soil material overlying the geocomposite drainage layer shall
comply with the following:
Maximum Allowable Equipment
Ground Pressure (psi)
<5
<10
<20
>20
Thickness of Overlying
Compacted Fill (ft.)
1.0
1.5
2.0
3.0
3.05 PRODUCT PROTECTION

A. CONTRACTOR shall use all means necessary to protect all prior work and all
materials and completed work of other Sections.
B. In the event of damage, CONTRACTOR shall immediately make all repairs and
replacements necessary, to the approval of the CQA Consultant and at no additional
cost to OWNER.
D-8
Appendix D
TABLE 02620-1
GEOCOMPOSITE PROPERTY VALUES
PROPERTIES
Geonet Component
QUALIFIERS
UNITS
Thickness
Resin Density
MARV
MARV
mils
g/cc
Carbon Black Content
Range
Tensile Strength
MARV
lb/inch
Compression Strength
Geotextile Component
Mass Per Unit Area
Grab Strength
Puncture Strength
AOS, US Sieve
AOS
Permittivity
UV Resistance (after
500 hours)
Geocomposite
Index Transmissivity(1)
Performance
Transmissivity(2)
MARV
kPa
MARV
MARV
MARV
MARV
MaxARV
Peel Strength
Interface Shear
Strength(3)
VALUES
METHOD
FREQUENCY
ASTM D5199
ASTM D792 or
D1505
ASTM D1603 or
D4218
ASTM D5035
1/50,000 ft2
1/50,000 ft2
MARV
oz/yd2
lbs
lbs
sieve #
mm
sec-1
% retained
ASTM D5261
ASTM D4632
ASTM D4833
ASTM D4751
ASTM D4751
ASTM D 4491
ASTM D4355
1/90,000 ft2
1/90,000 ft2
1/90,000 ft2
1/540,000 ft2
1/540,000 ft2
1/540,000 ft2
Once per resin
formulation
MARV
Minimum
gal/ft/min
m2/sec
ASTM D4716
ASTM D4716
MARV
lb/in
minimum
degrees
GRI GC7 or
ASTM D 7005
ASTM D5321
(as modified in
the CQA Plan)
1/540,000 ft2
1 per project or
accept
manufacturers
certificate
1/50,000 ft2
1/50,000 ft2
1/50,000 ft2
As per project
requirements
Notes:
1 Transmissivity to be measured using water at 68F (20C) with hydraulic gradient(s) of 0.1, under a
confining pressure of 10,000 lb/sf. The geocomposite shall be placed in the testing device between
two steel plates or smooth 60 mil HDPE geomembranes. Measurements are taken 15 minutes after
application of confining pressure.
2 Performance transmissivity test to be performed using site-specific load, gradient, boundary
conditions and a minimum test time of 100 hours.
3 Interface shear strength testing shall be performed under saturated conditions at normal stresses of
representative of field conditions.
D-9

Drainage Design Manual Final CD GSE

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Drainage Design Manual Final CD GSE

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

DRAINAGE

DESIGN MANUAL - SECOND EDITION

4.4.3. Design Method..4-20

Design Flow Charts

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 provides an introduction to the fundamentals of geonets and geocomposites,

Appendix A: 100-hour transmissivity test results for various GSE products;

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

2.2 Basic Description and Function of Geonets and Geocomposites

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.1. Structure of a typical biplanar geonet.

Figure 2.2. Structure of the triplanar geonet.

2.2.1 GSE HyperNet and FabriNet Product Line

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.3(a). GSE HyperNet geonet and GSE FabriNet geocomposite.

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.3(b). GSE HyperNet TRx geonet.

2.2.2 GSE PermaNet Product Line

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Overburden stress is thus an important design consideration when selecting a geosynthetic

Figure 2.4(a). GSE PermaNet UL geonet and geocomposite.

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

GSE HyperNet geonet

GSE PermaNet geonet

The PermaNet UL product is intended for very high stress applications.

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.5. Compression strength of HyperNet vs. PermaNet.

2.2.3 GSE BioDrain Product Line

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

a) BioDrain type of drainage geocomposite is a possible option for leachate recirculation

Figure 2.6. GSE BioDrain Drainage geocomposites.

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.8. A photograph of woven-geonet BioDrain geocomposite on McGill Road Landfill,

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

2.3 Transmissivity and Modification Factors

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

Figure 2.9. Transmissivity test equipment.

where = transmissivity (m2/sec); a = constant (dimensionless); i = gradient (dimensionless);

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

the absence of site-specific information, 100-hour transmissivity value can be modified to

Figure 2.11. Effect of time on transmissivity of geonets and geocomposites.

2.4 Hydraulic Conductivity of Geonets and Geocomposites

The GSE Drainage Design Manual, Second Edition

Chapter 2 Fundamentals Of Geonets And Geocomposites

where = transmissivity (m2/sec); k = hydraulic conductivity along the length of product