1 Simulation water movement through the GCL cover using a physical model

2 and HYDRUS-1D software

3

4 Mohahammad Mehdi Bideh1, Mohammad Shayannejad2, Mozhde Ramezani3, Seyed Mehdi

5 Hejazi4, Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari5*
6
1
7 Department of Water Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of
8 Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran.
2
9 Department of Water Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of
10 Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran.
3
11 Department of Water Science and Engineering, College of Agriculture, Isfahan University of
12 Technology, Isfahan 8415683111, Iran.
4
13 Department of Textile Engineering, Isfahan University of Technology, Isfahan 8415683111,
14 Iran.
5*
15 Department of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, American University in Dubai,

16 Dubai, 28282 United Arab Emirates and visiting researcher, Department of Natural Sciences,

17 Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester M1 5GD, United Kingdom. E-mail:

18 kaveh.oaa2000@gmail.com (*Corresponding author)

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

20 Abstract

21 The most common problems of the landfill site are environmental degradation and groundwater

22 contamination caused by leachate produced during the decomposition process of organic

23 material and rainfall. Most of the landfill sites in developed countries have used Geosynthetic

24 clay liners (GCLs) as landfill leachate barriers to protect the environment. In this article, the

25 simulation of movement of water through the GCL liner, using Hydrus-1D software, was

26 investigated. Twelve different Geosynthetic clay liners, including two types of geotextiles (PP

27 and PET), two types of bentonite (A, B) and three bentonite mass per unit area (4, 4.5 and 5 kg /

28 m2) were tested. Analysis of residual errors, differences between the measured and simulated

29 values, was performed to evaluate the model performance, based on the mean absolute error

30 (MAE), root means square error (RMSE), the coefficient of determination (CD), modeling

31 efficiency (EF) and coefficient of residual mass (CRM). The outputs from the models were

32 compared against the measured infiltrated water and water drained data. Simulated and measured

33 infiltrated water and drained water were in excellent agreement. Modeling efficiency in

34 estimating the drainage water and infiltrated water are 0.81 and 0.97, respectively. Additionally,

35 the mean absolute error and root mean square error were 1.29 and 1.45 respectively for

36 estimating the drained water and were 4.23 and 4.71 for estimating infiltrated water respectively.

37 The simulation results showed that although the model is able to perform a good estimation of

38 the infiltration and drainage process. However, the estimated values of infiltrated water and

39 drained water does not match with observed data in the laboratory. This shows that HYDRUS-

40 1D software does not consider the hydrophobicity of the geotextiles.

41 Keywords

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

42 Geosynthetic Clay liners; Landfill; HYDRUS-1D; Modeling Efficiency; Groundwater

43 Contamination; Geotextiles;

44 Introduction

45 Groundwater pollution due to leakage and penetration of leachate in landfills is one of the major

46 problems that have caused many environmental problems. It was thought decades ago that the

47 leachate produced from waste at the bottom of the landfill site, thoroughly treated after

48 penetrating into the soil layers and groundwater flow and did not pose a risk to contamination of

49 groundwater resources. For this reason, disposing of waste materials in a landfill and burying

50 wastes pose in the ground continued without any control measures by various communities.

51 However, from the 1950s onwards, research carried out showed that landfills, due to leachate

52 containing harmful chemical elements cause contamination of groundwater resources, so that

53 after being Contaminated, cleaning them is difficult and very costly. Landfill liner is one of the

54 effective factors preventing leachate from reaching the groundwater. In general, various factors

55 are involved in the selection of the liner. Hence, the most important factors of which are Type of

56 soils in or near the area, quantity, and quality of solid waste, hydrology, and hydrogeology of the

57 region, crucial environmental factors, leachate flow rate, the permeability of existing soils and

58 installation costs. So with regard to the above, depending on the environmental and regional

59 conditions, it is possible to select an appropriate impermeable liner with these conditions. Varied

60 methods have been proposed for landfill liner, Compacted Clay Liners (CCLs), Geomembrane

61 (GM) composite liner, Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL), or a combination of these (Mazzieri et

62 al., 2005; and Wersin et al., 2004). Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) is a Geocomposite that is

63 also considered for its wide usage separately. As defined by D4439-ASTM, Geosynthetic Clay

64 Liner (GCLs) are artificial hydraulic barriers which made of a thin layer of bentonite clay

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

65 sandwiched between two layers of geotextiles or glued to a Geomembrane. The layers are

66 mechanically bonded by needle punching fibers or stitch bonds that tie the two sides of the GCL

67 together. In another type, bentonite is mixed with an adhesive and held between two geotextiles

68 layers. Due to their low permeability, these liners are widely used in various environmental

69 projects such as soil amendments for compacted soil barriers in landfill Liners and cover systems

70 (Mazzieri et al., 2005; Gleason et al., 1997). The large specific surface, strong negative charge,

71 and interlayer separation result in bentonite maintaining low levels of permeability to water

72 (Shackelford et al., 2000; Jo et al., 2001). However, these same factors also make bentonite

73 sensitive to chemical interactions that can cause an increase in permeability (Jo et al., 2001;

74 Bouazza, 2002; Jo et al., 2005; Ozhan, 2018). Wang et. al (2019) used two types of needle-

75 punched GCLs, a natural sodium bentonite GCL, and a sodium activated-calcium bentonite

76 GCL. The two GCLs were permeated with distilled water and leachate. The effects of the type of

77 bentonite, effective stress and prehydration were assessed. At effective stress of 30 KPa, the

78 hydraulic conductivity for distilled water was1.5 ×10-11 m/s and 5.1 × 10-11 m/s for the two

79 types GCLs respectively. The aim of this paper is measuring the hydraulic conductivity of

80 different liners in terms of bentonite type, geotextile type and distribution of bentonite mass per

81 unit area, using a physical model to assess best Geosynthetic Clay Liner (GCL) from that one

82 which used in this investigation. Moreover, the ability of the HYDRUS-1D model to simulate the

83 movement of water from these liners will be evaluated.

84 Methods and Materials

85 Geosynthetic Clay Liners

86 Twelve samples in three replications including two types of sodium bentonite, as shown in table

87 1, with an average bentonite mass per unit area of 4, 4.5 and which were sandwiched

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

88 between two layers of geotextile (PP and PET) with the corresponding abbreviation P and T

89 respectively. The weight of PP and PET geotextile layers was 400 and 300 g / m, respectively,

90 and the needle punching density was 45. The mineral contents of bentonite samples were

91 investigated by using X-ray powder diffraction (XRD) tests and X-ray fluorescence (XRF) tests.

92 The Sodium and Potassium contents of bentonites were investigated by Flame Photometry

93 device at Isfahan University of Technology Lab, Isfahan. The Magnesium and Calcium contents

94 were determined by Titration test. Table 1 represents the inorganic, mineral and exchangeable

95 components of bentonites.

96 Table 1. The bentonite components

Component Bentonite type A Bentonite type I

Inorganic compounds (%) SiO2 68.5 72.3

Al2O3 16.3 11.1

Na2O 1.3 1

K2O 0.3 0.5

CaO 2.2 3.1

Fe2O 1.6 2.8

MgO 1.8 1.1

Loss on ignition 7.67 6.03

Mineral contents (%) Montmorillonite 86 79

Feldspat 1 3

Quartz 8 13

Kaolinite 4 2

Illite - 1

Other minerals 1 2

97

98 Additionally, Test method ASTM- D5890 was used to determine the free swelling index. A 2g

99 sample of dried and finely ground bentonite clay is dispersed into a 100 ml graduated cylinder in

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

100 0.1g increments. A minimum of 10 minutes must pass between additions to allow for full

101 hydration and settlement of the clay to the bottom of the cylinder. These steps are followed until

102 the entire 2g sample has been added to the cylinder. The sample is then covered and protected

103 from disturbances for a period of 16 - 24 hours, at which time the level of the settled and swollen

104 clay is recorded as the free swell index of bentonite. The free swell index for bentonite type I

105 was 25 ml/gr while Bentonite type A swell index was 34 ml/gr.

106 Permeability testing device

107 In order to carry out this test, it was necessary to have a device that, in addition to being sealed,

108 could be used to measure the permeability of the liners at high pressures, and therefore

109 Permeability testing device designed and manufactured for this purpose (Fig. 1). The assembled

110 device has a length of one meter and seventy cm and a width of 5.0 meters and consists of five

111 main sections: 1. The main metal cylinder in 70 cm height and 12 cm in diameter with conical-

112 shape top, 2. A cylinder with a diameter of 12 cm and a height of 20 cm whose bottom is welded

113 to a perforated plate and is bolted to the upper column by the flange, 3. permeant liquid reservoir,

114 4. Tube for making pressure on the liquid (Tube is kept inside a metal chamber) and 5. an air

115 pump

116

117

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

118

119 Figure 1 Permeability testing device

120 Afterward, water was pumped into the cylinder at a defined pressure up to 30 kPa for 6 hours

121 (This pressure is equal to the pressure that is actually applied to the bottom of the landfills). The

122 amount of head losses and drainage water were measured at various times. Using them along

123 with area and an average thickness of the sample (which was measured after the test).

124 The hydraulic conductivity was calculated by the Darcy law at the test time.

125 The Unsaturated Soil Hydraulic Properties

126 The unsaturated soil hydraulic properties, θ (h) and K(h), are in general highly nonlinear

127 functions of the pressure head. HYDRUS-1D permits the use of three different analytical models

128 for the hydraulic properties [Brooks and Corey, 1964; van Genuchten, 1980; and Vogel and

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

129 Císlerová, 1988]. HYDRUS2 also implements the soil-hydraulic functions of van Genuchten

130 [1980] who used the statistical pore-size distribution model of Mualem [1976] to obtain a

131 predictive equation for the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity function in terms of soil water

132 retention parameters. The expressions of van Genuchten [1980] are given by Eq. 1 and Eq. 2:

133 Eq. 1

134 K(h)= Eq. 2

135 Where

136 m= 1-1/n, n >1

137 The above equations contain five independent parameters: θr, θs, α, n, and Ks. Where Ks is the

138 saturated hydraulic conductivity; a, n and m are the curve fitting parameters; h is required suction

139 range; θ (h)is volumetric water content; θr is residual volumetric water content; θs is saturated

140 water content. The pore-connectivity parameter l in the hydraulic conductivity function was

141 estimated [Mualem, 1976] to be about 0.5 as an average for many soils.

142 HYDRUS-1D Model

143 HYDRUS software is one of the most complete packages for simulating water, heat, and solute

144 movement in both two- and three-dimensional variably saturated and porous media (Šimůnek et

145 al., 2008 and Mashayekhi et al. 2016). This model simulates water flow in variably saturated

146 porous media and utilizes the Galerkin finite element method based on the mass conservative

147 iterative scheme proposed by Celia et al. (1990). Additionally, this model is able to estimate soil

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

148 properties with inverse modeling feature. In this study, the input data of the model are divided

149 into two categories:

150 A: Input data for model calibration (inverse modeling) for the first repetition

151 B: Input data for validating the model (main model) for repeat two and third

152 In Hydrus -1d software, reverse modeling starts by selecting the inverse solution in the main

153 processing section. In this section, the input data of the model are geometry information, time

154 information, soil hydraulic property model and boundary condition.

155 After entering the model inputs, the model was implemented and the hydraulic parameters of the

156 hydraulic model were determined based on the measured values. The input data of the original

157 model, such as the inverse model, is introduced. Only with the difference that the hydraulic

158 parameters obtained from the inverse procedure are used for two subsequent repetitions.

159 Results and Discussion

160 Saturated Hydraulic Conductivity

161 Investigating the amount of saturated hydraulic conductivity variation shows that, the mean of

162 saturated hydraulic conductivity of TI4 and PA5 with 0.18 and 0.05 mm / min had the highest

163 and lowest values respectively. Samples containing bentonite type I have a higher hydraulic

164 conductivity than similar samples with Bentonite type A. This may be due to higher

165 montmorillonite and sodium content in Bentonite Type A in comparison with Bentonite Type I.

166 Since the presence of montmorillonite in bentonite increases the swelling and impermeability

167 properties.

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

168

169 Figure 2. The comparison of hydraulic conductivities between different GCL samples prepared in this study

170 Data analysis was performed using SAS software, and its results are presented in Table 3.

171 According to the results, the effect of bentonite type and Bentonite Dispersion, as well as the

172 interaction between type of bentonite and Bentonite Dispersion were significant at 1% level.

173 Accordingly, the saturated hydraulic conductivity of Bentonite type I is higher than that of

174 bentonite type A. Additionally, the effect of Geotextile type was not significant at 1 and 5%

175 levels, which indicates that the type of geotextile has a small effect on hydraulic conductivity.

176

10

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

177 Table 2 Hydraulic conductivity variance analysis

Degrees of
Source of variation mean square F significance level
freedom

Bentonite type 1 0.00624 17.98 0.0002**

Geotextile type 1 0.00064 1.25 0.27060n.s

Bentonite Dispersion 2 0.00444 15.97 0.0001**

Bentonite type*Geotextile type 1 0.00039 1.15 0.2918n.s

Bentonite type*Bentonite Dispersion 2 0.00072 14.53 0.0001**

Geotextile type*Bentonite Dispersion 2 0.00005 0.16 0.8497n.s

Error 35

178

179 Model Calibration Analysis

180 After entering the inputs of the model, the model was executed and the outputs were obtained

181 and the first repeat of each sample was used to calibrate the model. During the calibration steps

182 for the HYDRUS-1D model, the Mualem-van Genuchten hydraulic parameters were changed by

183 the software so that the best match between the measured infiltration data and the values

184 simulated by the model was obtained.

185

11

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

186 Table 5 represents the hydraulic parameters of each sample.

n α θs θr

Sample --- (mm-1) (mm3*mm-3) mm3*mm-3

PI4 1.53 0.00041 0.7 0.06

PA4 1.5 0.0004 0.7 0.06

PI4.5 1.5 0.00032 0.71 0.06

PA4.5 1.54 0.00028 0.72/ 0.06

PI5 1.41 0.00009 0.75 0.07

PA5 1.55 0.000088 0.75 0.04

TI4 1.49 0.00036 0.69 0.07

TA4 1.47 0.0004 0.71 0.05

TI4.5 1.5 0.00012 0.7 0.06

TA4.5 1.5 0.00018 0.74 0.05

TI5 1.42 0.00006 0.73 0.06

TA5 1.53 0.00002 0.74 0.05

187

188 Model Validation Analysis

189 The model was evaluated using a graphical method and statistical indicators. In the graphical

190 method, cumulative infiltration and drainage data were used. Using the 30 data of two other

191 replicates of each sample, the predicted infiltration was plotted versus observed infiltration for all

192 samples (Fig. 3.) The minimum and maximum coefficients of R2 are 0.98 and 0.99. The graphs

193 show that the model estimates the amount of water infiltrated less than observations.

194

12

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

195

196

13

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

197 Fig. 3 the predicted infiltration versus observed infiltration for all samples

198

199

14

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

200 Using the 20 data of two other replicates of each sample, the predicted drainage values were

201 plotted versus observed drainage values for all samples. The minimum and maximum

202 coefficients of R2 are 0.9973 and 0.9998. The graphs show that the model estimates the amount

203 of water infiltrated less than observations.

204

15

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

205

16

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

206 Fig. 4 the predicted drainage values versus observed drainage values for all samples

207 Evaluation of the Model with Statistical Indicators

208 Statistical criteria of the Least-square regression coefficient of determination (R2), Coefficient of

209 determination (CD), Median absolute error (MAE, cm3), root mean squares of errors (RMSE,

210 cm3), standard deviation (SD), Coefficient of residual mass (CRM) and Modelling efficiency

211 (EF) were calculated as follows Eqs. 3-9:

212 Eq. 3

213

214 Eq. 4

215

216 Eq. 5

217

218 Eq. 6

219

17

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

 220 Eq. 7

221

222 Eq. 8

223

224 Eq. 9

225

226 In all the above formulas, Pi and Oi are observed and predicted values of cumulative infiltration

227 and drainage, respectively, is the mean of the observed infiltration and drainage values, and N

228 is the number of the points. The data measured in the laboratory was used to evaluate and

229 compare the model. The results show that in general, in all samples considered, simulation has

230 acceptable performance and there was a high correlation between the observed and predicted

231 cumulative infiltration and drainage data in all samples (as R2 value was 0.98 and 0.96

232 respectively). Due to the proximity of this parameter to one, it can be concluded that the process

233 of simulation of infiltration and drainage in clay Geosynthetic liner is in accordance with reality.

234 The minimum and maximum Coefficient of determination in samples for drainage were 0.91 and

235 1.53 and for infiltration was 0.83 and 0.91 respectively. The close proximity of this parameter to

236 one indicates that the dispersion of observations and measurements is approximately equal. The

237 minimum and maximum mean absolute error in samples for drainage were equal to 0.39 and

238 2.34 and for infiltration, values were 2.65 and 8.9, respectively. The close proximity of this

239 parameter to zero in estimating drainage values indicates the high accuracy of the model in its

240 simulation. Additionally, calculated root mean squares of errors, which was equal to 1.45 for

241 drainage values and 4.71 for infiltrated values respectively, indicates that the model estimates the

242 amount of drained water better than the amount of infiltrated water from liners. The coefficient

18

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

243 of residual mass shows the model's tendency to estimate higher or lower values in comparison

244 with measured values. The Coefficient of the residual mass of the model for drainage and

245 infiltration values was -0.06 and -0.26, respectively. Negative Coefficient of determination for

246 drainage values indicates that the measured values are greater than the values predicted by the

247 model. The close proximity of this parameter to zero for both drainage and infiltration values

248 indicates a good performance of the model. The minimum and maximum model efficiency in

249 samples for drainage were equal to 0.89 and 0.99 and for infiltration, values were 0.56 and 8.4,

250 respectively. The proximity of this parameter to one indicates that the model has a good

251 performance.

252 Conclusions

253 In this work, twelve different Geosynthetic clay liners samples varying in types of geotextiles,

254 type of bentonite and bentonite mass per unit area were tested. Analysis of residual errors was

255 performed to evaluate the model performance, based on the mean absolute error (MAE), root

256 means square error (RMSE), the coefficient of determination (CD), modeling efficiency (EF) and

257 coefficient of residual mass (CRM). The main results obtained through this research can be

258 summarized as follows:

259 1.The hydraulic conductivity of the Geosynthetic Clay Liner with Type A bentonite is

260 higher than that of Type I Bentonite Geosynthetic liner. Therefore, Bentonite type A liner

261 has a better performance than type I bentonite liner.

262 2.Moreover, the effect of geotextile type on hydraulic conductivity was not significant at

263 level 1% and 5%, which indicates that geotextile type has a small effect on hydraulic

264 conductivity.

19

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

265 Data Availability Statement

266 All the data, including the experimental measurements, the data used for formulating empirical

267 relations, and the code processing the data that support the findings of this study, are available

268 from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

269 Conflict of Interest Statement

270 There is no conflict of interest.

271 Consent to Publish

272 Mohahammad-Mehdi Bideh, Mohammad Shayannejad, Mozhde Ramezani, Seyed-Mehdi Hejazi

273 and Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari agree to publish this manuscript. There is no conflict of interest.

274 Author’s Contributions

275 Mohahammad-Mehdi Bideh, Mohammad Shayannejad, Mozhde Ramezani, Seyed-Mehdi Hejazi

276 and Kaveh Ostad-Ali-Askari designed the study, collected data, wrote the manuscript and revised

277 it.

278 Funding Information

279 Funding information is not applicable. No funding was received. No grants were received.

280

20

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

281 References
282 [1] Bouazza, A., 2002. Geosynthetic clay liner. Geotext Geomembranes 20 (1), 3–17

283 [2] Brooks, R. H., and A. T. Corey. 1966. Properties of porous media affecting fluid flow. J.

284 Irrig.Drainage Div., ASCE Proc. 72(IR2), 61-88.

285 [3] Celia, M.A., E.T. Bouloutas, and R.L. Zarba. 1990. A general mass-conservative numerical

286 solution for the unsaturated flow equation. Water Resour. Res. 26:1483–1496.).

287 [4] Gleason, M. H., D. E. Daniel and G. R. Eykholt. 1997. Calcium and sodium bentonite for

288 hydraulic containment applications, J Geotech Geoenviron Eng, 123: 438–445.

289 [5] Jo, H.Y., Benson, C.H., Shackelford, C.D., Lee, J., Edil, T.B., 2005. Long-term hydraulic

290 conductivity of a geosynthetic clay liner permeated with inorganic salt solutions.

291 J.Geotech. Geoenviron. 131 (4), 405–417.

292 [6] Jo, H.Y., Katsumi, T., Benson, C.H., Edil, T.B., 2001. Hydraulic conductivity and swelling of

293 nonprehydrated GCLs permeated with single-species salt solutions. J.

294 Geotech.Geoenviron. 127 (7), 557–567.

295 [7] Mashayekhi P, Ghorbani-Dashtaki S, Mosaddeghi MR, Shirani H, and Nodoushan ARM.

296 2016. Different scenarios for inverse estimation of soil hydraulic parameters from

297 double-ring infiltrometer data using HYDRUS-2D/3D. Int. Agrophys. 30: 203-210.

298 [8] Mazzieri, F., P. Van Impe and G. Di Emidio.2005. Chemico-osmotic behaviour of modified

299 'Multiswellable' bentonite, in: 16th International Conference on Soil Mechanics and

300 Geotechnical Engineering, Osaka, Japan.

301 [9] Mualem, Y. 1976. A new model for predicting the hydraulic conductivity of unsaturated

302 porous media, Water Resour. Res., 12(3), 513-522.

21

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010

303 [10] Ozhan, H.O., 2018. Hydraulic capability of polymer-treated GCLs in saline solutions at

304 elevated temperatures. Appl. Clay Sci. 161, 364–373.

305 [11] Shackelford, C.D., Benson, C.H., Katumi, T., Edil, T.B., Lin, L., 2000. Evaluating the

306 hydraulic conductivity of GCLs permeated with non-standard liquids. Geotext.

307 Geomembr. 18 (2–4), 133–161

308 [12] Šimůnek J., van Genuchten M.Th., and Šejna M., 2008. Development and applications of

309 the HYDRUS and STANMOD software packages and related codes. Vadose Zone J.,

310 7(2), 587-600.

311 [13] van Genuchten, M. Th. 1980. A closed-form equation for predicting the hydraulic

312 conductivity of unsaturated soils, Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 44, 892-898.

313 [14] Vogel, T., M. Císlerová. 1988. On the reliability of unsaturated hydraulic conductivity

314 calculated from the moisture retention curve, Transport in Porous Media, 3, 1-15.

315 [15] Wang, b., J. Xu, B. Chen, X. dong and T. Dou. 2019. Hydraulic conductivity of

316 Geosynthetic Clay Liners to inorganic waste leachate, Applied Clay Science.244-248.

317 [16] Wersin, P., E. Curti and J. Appelo. 2004. Modelling bentonite–water interactions at high

318 solid/liquid ratios: swelling and diffuse double layer effects, Appl Clay Sci, 26: 249-257.

319

320

321

22

Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4787010