Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Abstract: Local tensile strains in a 1.5-mm-thick high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane induced from coarse overliner soil materials
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UNIVERSIDADE DE BRASILIA on 01/19/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
intended to simulate the physical conditions at the base of a heap leach mineral extraction pad under very deep burial are reported. They were
obtained from physical experiments conducted in a 590-mm-diameter pressure vessel at applied vertical pressures up to 3,000 kPa for 100 h
and a temperature of 21°C. An applied pressure of 3,000 kPa corresponds to a heap leach depth of around 150 m. Three different coarse-
grained overliner materials placed directly above the geomembrane and a silty sand underliner beneath the geomembrane were examined. Both the
grain size and grain size distribution of the overliner affected the maximum tensile strain in the geomembrane. At an applied pressure of 3,000 kPa,
the largest strain of 27% recorded for the coarsest overliner tested, which had a maximum particle size of 50 mm and 20% sand, well exceeded one
proposed maximum allowable strain limit of 6%. Finer overliners with both a smaller maximum particle size (25 mm) and much more sand (35 and
55%) reduced the geomembrane strains, but the maximum values still exceeded 6% by a factor of 2, even for the finest overliner examined. At these
high pressures, a 150-mm-thick silty sand protection layer between the geomembrane and even the coarsest overliner examined was found to be
very effective at reducing local indentations in the geomembrane from overliner particles and was able to reduce the tensile strain in the
geomembrane to 2%. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)GT.1943-5606.0001087. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geomembranes; Liners; Leaching; Mining.
et al. (2013b), where HDPE was used in 75% of those cases, pre-
A cylindrical steel pressure vessel with an inside diameter of 590 sumably because of its good chemical resistance [for reference, linear-
mm and a height of 500 mm (Fig. 1) was used to examine the re- low density polyethylene (LLDPE) was used in 22% of these cases and
sponse of a geomembrane to different overliner materials. It is PVC in 3%]. Index tensile properties of the geomembrane are given in
capable of sustaining internal working pressures up to 3,100 kPa. Table 1. It also had a crystallinity of 48% when tested in accordance
Vertical pressures were applied by using fluid pressure acting on with ASTM E794 (ASTM 2006). All geomembrane specimens tested
a flexible, natural gum rubber bladder. Horizontal pressures cor- were obtained from the same roll.
responding to conditions of zero lateral strain were developed by Only one particular silty sand underliner was examined in this
limiting the outward deflection of the test apparatus. paper to isolate the effects of the overliner on geomembrane strains.
A friction treatment comprised of high-temperature bearing With a maximum particle size of 2 mm and 25–30% low plasticity
grease between two layers of 0.1-mm-thick polyethylene sheets was fines (Fig. 2), this soil was toward the finer bound of the envelope of
used to reduce side wall friction along the vertical boundaries of the underliner materials reported by Lupo and Morrison (2007). It also
test apparatus. One sheet was attached to the inside wall of the test was within the range of typical underliners in the heap leach cases
apparatus, whereas the other was able to move downward with the reviewed by Rowe et al. (2013b). The silty sand was compacted in
overliner material. The friction treatment was protected by six 1.5- the apparatus to its Standard Proctor maximum dry density
mm-thick high-density polyethylene (HDPE) strips that were cut to (1,750 kg=m3 ) at its Standard Proctor optimum moisture content
be 45 mm wide and placed in front of the friction treatment in rings, (11%) in three 50-mm-thick lifts.
with a vertical spacing of 5 mm between the rings to minimize
binding. With this treatment, boundary friction has been measured
to be less than 5° for normal stresses on the interface up to 150 kPa Overliners
(Tognon et al. 1999), which corresponds to an applied vertical Three different overliners, denoted as OL1–OL3, were used in this
pressure of 500 kPa in Fig. 1 if the lateral earth pressure coefficient is study. Their grain size distributions are plotted in Fig. 2, and key
0.3. On the basis of physical testing and nonlinear finite-element values are summarized in Table 2. The grain size envelope of
analysis, Krushelnitzky and Brachman (2009) verified the effec- overliner materials from several heap leach projects compiled by
tiveness of the friction treatment in the 0.6-m-diameter cell for Lupo and Morrison (2007) was used as guidance to select these
applied vertical pressures of 3,000 kPa. For the size of the test overliner materials. Overliner OL1 was the coarsest material tested.
apparatus and an interface friction of 5°, at least 95% of the pressure Its gradation was selected to match the coarser bound of the envelope
applied at the top has been calculated to reach the elevation of the by Lupo and Morrison (2007). OL1 is a well-graded gravel with
geomembrane (Brachman and Gudina 2002). Posttest inspections a maximum particle size of 50 mm and about 20% by mass sand-size
of the sand surface indicated no discernible affects from interface particles. Overliner OL2 had a similar shaped grain size distribution
Fig. 1. Cross section through a typical test cell used in experiments (mm)
Table 2. Overliner Grain Size 2,000 or 3,000 kPa was reached. Breitenbach and Thiel (2005)
reported typical unit weights of crushed ore in heap leach pads to be
Overliner D10 (mm) D30 (mm) D60 (mm) D85 (mm) Cu Cc
between 17.3 and 20:4 kN=m3 . Assuming a unit weight of 19 kN=m3
OL1 2 8.8 18 30 9.0 2.2 and considering 95% of the applied pressure reaching the level of
OL2 0.18 1.9 8 17 44 2.5 geomembrane, applied pressures of 2,000 and 3,000 kPa correspond
OL3 0.05 0.23 2 10.1 40 0.5 to ore heights of approximately 100 and 150 m, respectively. The
largest pressure in each test was held constant for 100 h. All experiments
were conducted at a temperature of 21 6 2°C; as such, the strains may
curve as OL1 but had a smaller maximum and minimum grain size. It underestimate the pressures if service temperatures are higher.
is a well-graded gravel and sand with a maximum particle size of 25 After completion of each test, the geomembrane was carefully
mm and less than 10% nonplastic fines. OL2 matched the finer bound removed and inspected. The local deformations in the geomembrane
of the overliner envelope from Lupo and Morrison (2007). Overliner were preserved on a thin lead sheet that was placed between the
OL3 had the same maximum grain size and a similar amount of fines geomembrane and the underliner. The lead sheet was 0.4 mm thick
as OL2, but had much more sand. For all three overliners, the coarse and measured 270 3 270 mm. The deformed shape of the local
particles were crushed from granite that produced angular to sub- indentations was then measured with a laser scanner to an accuracy
angular particles (Fig. 3). of 6 0:04 mm. Geomembrane strains were calculated from the
The overliners were placed in the apparatus without compaction measured deformed shape using the method developed by Tognon
(a scoop full of gravel particles was gently dropped from a constant et al. (2000).
height of approximately 50 mm), achieving an initial bulk density of
approximately 1,550 kg=m3 . The overliner was 300 mm thick as
shown in Fig. 1. Results
Procedure
Typical Results
After the underliner, geomembrane, and overliner materials were
placed in the test apparatus, a separator geotextile and a 50- to 70- A total of nine different test series were conducted. The overliner
mm-thick layer of fine to medium sand were placed on top of the and applied pressure for each series is given in Table 3. The geo-
overliner. This sand was used to protect the bladder from potential membrane did not puncture in any of these tests, and hence, the focus
puncture by coarse gravel in the overliner. The sand was leveled, and of this paper is on the tensile strains that developed in the geo-
a rubber bladder was then installed above the sand with another layer membrane. The largest three tensile strains from each test are also
of separator geotextile between the fine sand and the bladder. The given in Table 3.
bladder was secured into place between the flanges of the test ap- To illustrate how strains were calculated, a typical deformed
paratus to provide a mechanical seal. shape of an indentation producing the maximum tensile strain in
To start each experiment, water pressure was applied to the Test 4 is plotted in Fig. 4(a). In this and all other similar plots, h is the
bladder in increments of 200 kPa every 10 min (to allow the system vertical distance above the deepest point of the indentation. The
to respond to the pressure increment) until the required pressure of components of membrane and bending strain of the geomembrane as
Fig. 6. (a) Measured deformed shape of geomembrane indentation; (b) calculated membrane and bending components of strain; (c) calculated strains
for the top and bottom surfaces of the geomembrane for the indentation with the maximum strain in Test 4B (OL1; 3,000 kPa)
Fig. 8. Largest strains calculated from each test series showing the
effect of pressure and overliner
the test series conducted in duplicate, the maximum strain for each test
was among the largest two strain values from that series.
Lupo, J. F. (2010). “Liner system design for heap leach pads.” J. Geotextile
Innovation Trust, the Ontario Research Fund Award, and Queen’s Geomembr., 28(2), 163–173.
University. The support of the Killam Trust in the form of a Killam Lupo, J. F., and Morrison, K. F. (2007). “Geosynthetic design and con-
Fellowship to Dr. Rowe is gratefully acknowledged. struction approaches in the mining industry.” J. Geotextile Geomembr.,
25(2), 96–108.
Peggs, I. D., Schmucker, B., and Carey, P. (2005). “Assessment of
Notation maximum allowable strains in polyethylene and polypropylene geo-
membranes.” Proc., Geo-Frontiers 2005 (CD-ROM), ASCE, Reston,
The following symbols are used in the paper: VA.
Cc 5 coefficient of curvature; Rowe, R. K. (2012). “Short and long-term leakage through composite
Cu 5 coefficient of uniformity; liners. The 7th Arthur Casagrande Lecture.” Can. Geotech. J., 49(2),
D10 5 grain size by which 10% of the soil by mass is finer; 141–169.
Rowe, R. K., Abdelaal, F. B., and Brachman, R. W. I. (2013a). “Antioxidant
D30 5 grain size by which 30% of the soil by mass is finer;
depletion from an HDPE geomembrane with a sand protection layer.”
D50 5 grain size by which 50% of the soil by mass is finer; Geosynthetics Int., 20(2), 73–89.
D60 5 grain size by which 60% of the soil by mass is finer; and Rowe, R. K., Brachman, R. W. I., Irfan, H., Smith, M. E., and Thiel, R.
D85 5 grain size by which 85% of the soil by mass is finer. (2013b). “Effect of underliner on geomembrane strains in heap leach
applications.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 40, 37–47.
Rowe, R. K., Quigley, R. M., Brachman, R. W. I., and Booker, J. R. (2004).
Barrier systems for waste disposal facilities, 2nd Ed., E&FN Spon,
References London.
Sabir, A. (2011). “Assessment of long-term tensile strains in HDPE geo-
Abdelaal, F. B., Rowe, R. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. (2013) “Brittle rupture membranes from gravel indentations.” Ph.D. thesis, Dept. of Civil En-
of an aged HDPE geomembrane at local gravel indentations under gineering, Queen’s Univ., Kingston, ON, Canada.
simulated field conditions.” Geosynthetics Int., in press. Seeger, S., and Müller, W. (2003). “Theoretical approach to designing
ASTM. (2006). “Standard test method for melting and crystallization protection: selecting a geomembrane strain criterion.” Geosynthetics:
temperatures by thermal analysis.” E794, West Conshocken, PA. Protecting the environment, N. Dixon, D. M. Smith, J. H. Greenwood,
ASTM. (2010). “Standard test method for determining tensile properties of and D. R. V. Jones, eds., Thomas Telford, London, 137–152.
nonreinforced polyethylene and nonreinforced flexible polypropylene Smith, M. E. (2013). “Emerging issues in mining containment.” Proc.,
geomembranes.” D6693, West Conshocken, PA. Geosynthetics 2013 (CD-ROM), Industrial Fabrics Association In-
Brachman, R. W. I., and Gudina, S. (2002). “A new laboratory apparatus for ternational, Roseville, MN.
testing geomembranes under large earth pressures.” Proc., 55th Cana- Thiel, R., and Smith, M. E. (2004). “State of the practice review of heap
dian Geotechnical Conf., Canadian Geotechnical Society, Richmond, leach pad design issues.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 22(6), 555–568.
BC, Canada, 993–1000. Tognon, A. R., Rowe, R. K., and Brachman, R. W. I. (1999). “Evaluation
Brachman, R. W. I., and Gudina, S. (2008a). “Geomembrane strains from of side wall friction for a buried pipe testing facility.” J. Geotextile
coarse gravel and wrinkles in a GM/GCL composite liner.” J. Geotextile Geomembr., 17(4), 193–212.
Geomembr., 26(6), 488–497. Tognon, A. R., Rowe, R. K., and Moore, I. D. (2000). “Geomembrane
Brachman, R. W. I., and Gudina, S. (2008b). “Gravel contacts and geo- strain observed in large-scale testing of protection layers.” J. Geotech.
membrane strains for a GM/CCL composite liner.” J. Geotextile Geo- Geoenviron. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)1090-0241(2000)126:12(1194),
membr., 26(6), 448–459. 1194–1208.