Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of A Landfill Cover System

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 170
Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of a Landfill Cover System

Sid Nadukuru, Ph.D., A.M.ASCE1; Ming Zhu, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCE2;
Cuneyt Gokmen, P.E., M.ASCE3; and Rudolph Bonaparte, Ph.D., P.E., F.ASCE4
1
Engineer, Geosyntec Consultants, 1255 Roberts Rd Blvd, Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail:
snadukuru@geosyntec.com
2
Principal, Geosyntec Consultants, 1255 Roberts Rd Blvd, Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by Imperial College London on 08/31/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
mzhu@geosyntec.com
3
Senior Principal, Geosyntec Consultants, 1255 Roberts Rd Blvd, Kennesaw, GA 30144. E-mail:
cgokmen@geosyntec.com
4
Chairman and Senior Principal, Geosyntec Consultants, 2002 Summit Blvd. NE, Suite 885,
Atlanta, GA 30319. E-mail: rbonaparte@geosyntec.com
Abstract
Composite landfill cover systems can have a variety of components and configurations. One
common configuration consists of a cover soil layer, a geocomposite drainage layer (GDL), and
a geosynthetic barrier layer. When properly designed and constructed, the GDL is expected to
provide sufficient drainage to limit water build-up above the geosynthetic barrier layer and
therefore, protect the cover system from a potential seepage-induced veneer slope failure.
However, the field performance of the cover system may be impacted by changed drainage
conditions, such as clogging, construction-induced wrinkling, and inadequate daylighting of the
GDL. This paper presents a study in which a combined transient seepage and slope stability
analysis has been performed to numerically evaluate the impact of GDL drainage conditions on
veneer slope stability. The analysis results indicated that the factor of safety varies with time and
can decrease significantly under certain drainage conditions. The numerical modeling framework
presented in this paper can be used to improve engineering design approaches and to perform
forensic evaluations of the post-construction system performance.
INTRODUCTION
Landfill cover systems are designed and constructed to manage and mitigate the potential
long-term risks that the underlying waste may pose to the environment. A landfill cover is most
often a multi-layered system that provides multiple functions including, but not limited to,
controlling surface runoff and infiltration of precipitation, controlling landfill gases and odors,
preventing human and ecological exposure to the waste, and meeting aesthetic and post-closure
end use requirements. The configurations of landfill cover systems are usually site-specific,
depending on the purpose of containment and the type of waste.
For the purposes of this study, a composite (i.e., soil-geosynthetic) landfill cover system
is considered. The system consists of a cover soil layer, a geocomposite drainage layer (GDL),
and a geosynthetic barrier layer (e.g., geomembrane). When properly designed and constructed,
the GDL is expected to provide sufficient drainage to limit water build-up above the geosynthetic
barrier layer and therefore, protect the cover system from a potential seepage-induced veneer
type slope failure.
© ASCE
Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Case histories have been documented in the literature where the landfill cover systems
did not perform as intended (Daniel and Gross 1996; EPA 2004; Gross et al. 2002) and veneer
type slope failures were observed. The problems were also observed by the authors at other sites,
occurring both shortly after construction and years after the completion of construction. The
combination of rainfall induced water build-up and seepage and lack of adequate internal
drainage was one of the major factors that caused many cases of the reported cover slope
instability.
The performance of the cover drainage system may be impacted by short and long-term
material behavior and environmental factors. These factors are typically taken into consideration
during the design phase. For example, the flow capacity of GDLs measured in laboratory tests is
often reduced as part of the design to account for factors such as: (i) time-dependent creep; (ii)
delayed intrusion; (iii) chemical degradation; (iv) particulate clogging; (v) chemical clogging;
and (vi) biological clogging. In addition to these factors, there are also cases where construction-
induced wrinkling, and/or inadequate daylighting of the GDL had caused significant flow
reduction or total blockage of the cover system internal drainage features, which can lead to
veneer type failure of the cover system.
Veneer stability is usually evaluated by assuming the appropriate water head calculated
from a water balance in the landfill cover (Giroud and Beech 1989; Koerner and Soong 1998).
The traditional methodologies for including seepage forces in cover slope design involve the
assumption of a static, either parallel-to-slope or horizontal phreatic surface within the cover soil
layer (Giroud et al. 1995). With the advances in numerical modeling techniques (e.g., the finite
element method), it is possible to simulate the transient process of water movement within the
cover system, while accounting for various boundary conditions (e.g., infiltration rate and
drainage conditions) and hydraulic properties of the soil and geosynthetic components of the
system.
This paper presents a study in which a combined transient seepage and slope stability
analysis has been performed to evaluate the impact of a set of varying drainage conditions on
veneer slope stability of a landfill cover system. The transient seepage analysis is first performed
using the finite element method to evaluate the phreatic surface inside the cover system at
different times during a design rainfall event. The results from the transient seepage analysis are
then input into the slope stability analysis model to calculate the corresponding factor of safety
(FS) of the cover slope using a conventional limit equilibrium method.
COVER SYSTEM GEOMETRY AND CASE SCENARIOS
The cover system modeled in this study includes from top to bottom: 0.15-meter (m) (6-inch)
thick vegetative soil layer; 0.46-m (18-inch) thick compacted cover soil layer; GDL;
geomembrane; and a soil-like industrial byproduct subgrade (shown in Figure 1 as “waste”)
layer. The GDL for these analyses was assumed to be a double-sided geocomposite material with
a 0.5-centimeter (cm) (200-mil) thick geonet core heat-bonded on both sides to nonwoven
geotextile backings. The geomembrane used for these analyses was assumed to be a 0.15-cm
(60-mil) thick textured high-density polyethylene (HDPE) geomembrane.
The slope of the cover system was assumed to be 3 horizontal to 1 vertical (3H:1V). The
height of the slope is assumed to be 9.1 meters (m) (30 feet). Four different cases were
evaluated: (1) Case 1 – adequately designed and constructed GDL (base case); (2) Case 2 –
localized clogging of the GDL; (3) Case 3 – localized wrinkle in the GDL; and (4) Case 4 – no
© ASCE

daylighting (i.e., drainage outlet) of the GDL near the toe of slope. Figures 1 to 4 show simple
illustrations of these four analyzed scenarios. For simplicity, details such as anchor trenches, gas
collection layers, connections etc., are not shown on these figures.
Figure 1. Case 1 – Cover System with Adequately Designed and Constructed GDL.
Figure 2. Case 2 – Cover System with Localized Clogging of the GDL.
Figure 3. Case 3 – Cover System with Localized Wrinkle in the GDL.
© ASCE

Figure 4. Case 4 – Cover System with No Daylighting of the GDL.
ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY
The seepage and slope stability analyses were performed using a commercial computer program
that performs two-dimensional finite element method seepage calculations and limit equilibrium
computations. In general, two types of seepage analyses can be performed: (i) steady state; and
(ii) transient. Steady state seepage analysis assumes that the water pressure and flow rate have
reached a steady condition and are independent of time. Transient seepage is a condition where
the water pressure and flow rate are changing and time-dependent. The transient seepage analysis
was performed in the study. The transient analysis requires the user to provide the initial
conditions and the current or future time-dependent boundary conditions in order for the user to
compute the change in pore-water pressures at different specified times.
The slope stability analysis was performed using Spencer’s method (Spencer 1967). The
computer program was used to generate potential slip surfaces, calculate the FS for each of these
surfaces, and identify the most critical slip surface with the lowest FS at select time intervals
corresponding to the transient seepage analysis.
MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND MODELING PROCEDURE
Material properties. The required geotechnical properties for the analysis are the unit weights,
shear strengths of the various cover components and geosynthetic interfaces, and hydraulic
properties. Table 1 summarizes the geotechnical properties used in the analysis. For the purposes
of this analysis, it is assumed that no slippage occurs between the geomembrane and the
subgrade. In addition to the properties summarized in Table 1, the transient seepage analysis
requires the input of volumetric water content (VWC) functions. Typical VWC functions
representative of the selected materials were used in this analysis (Rocscience 2016).
© ASCE

Table 1. Assumed material properties for seepage and slope stability analysis.
Total Unit Hydraulic Effective Friction Effective
[1] [2]
Material Weight kh/kv Conductivity Angle Cohesion
(kN/m3) (cm/s) (degrees) (kPa)
-5
Top Soil 18.85 (120) 1 1 x 10 32 0
-5
Cover Soil 18.85 (120) 1 1 x 10 32 0
Gravel 18.85 (120) 1 0.1 36 0
Geosynthetic 1 cm/s for 0.5 26
1.57
Drainage Layer 1 cm (200 mil) (Peak interface
(10)
(GDL) thick GDL[3] strength between 0
1.57 GDL and
Geomembrane 1 1 x 10-8
(10) Geomembrane)
Notes:
1. The values in parenthesis are in pounds per cubic feet (pcf)
2. kh is the horizontal permeability and kv is the vertical permeability.
3. To avoid numerical convergence problems, the GDL was modeled to be 7.6 cm (0.25 ft)
thick. For equivalency of transmissivity, the permeability of the 0.5 cm (200 mil) thick
GDL was adjusted to that of the modeled 7.6 cm (0.25 ft) thick GDL (i.e., 0.067 cm/s for
the modeled 7.6 cm [0.25 ft] thick GDL).
Modeled infiltration. When rain falls on an unsaturated slope, a portion of it infiltrates into the
soil and the remainder runs off. The water that infiltrates into the soil increases the water content
of the soil and decreases the soil suction. The infiltration of the water through the slope
continuously decreases after the beginning of a rainfall event until it reaches a steady state value.
The infiltration capacity of soil for a given rainfall has been discussed by Green and Ampt
(1911), Horton (1930), and Mein and Larson (1973), among others. In general, these models
suggest that the infiltration capacity of the soil follows a decreasing trend with time. The Mein
and Larson (1973) model assumes that infiltration through the soil cover reaches a steady state
value equal to the saturated permeability of the soil and the run-off cannot occur unless the
rainfall intensity exceeds the saturated permeability of the soil. However, other infiltration
models and results presented by Rahardjo et al. (2005) and Li et al. (2005) indicate that the
steady state infiltration can be less than the saturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil (often by
a factor of 2 to 3) and significant run-off could occur even when the rainfall intensity is below
the permeability of the soil.
For the seepage analysis presented in the paper, rainfall infiltration through the cover
system was modeled by prescribing a constant infiltration to the top of the vegetative soil layer.
The constant infiltration rate was assumed to be equal to the saturated permeability of the cover
soil and to last for three days. Figure 5 presents the assumed infiltration rate as a function of
time. The total infiltration into the cover soil was estimated to be about 1 inch (or 2.54 cm)
according to the function shown in Figure 5.
© ASCE

1
0.03
0.8
Infiltration Rate (cm/day)

Infiltration rate increases from 0 cm/day
Infiltration Rate (ft/day)

to 0.9 cm/day (0.03 ft/d) from t = 1.0 hr to
0.6 2.0 hr 0.02
Infiltration rate decreases from 0.9 cm/day

0.4 (0.03 ft/d) to 0 cm/day from t = 74 hr to

75 hr
0.01
0.2
0 0
0 1 2 3 4
Time, t (days)
Figure 5. Soil infiltration rate assumed in the seepage analysis.
Finite element mesh and boundary conditions. For the transient seepage analysis, the entire
model was discretized into nearly 3,000 three-node triangular elements with lengths ranging
from 0.03 m (0.1 ft) to 0.18 m (0.6 ft). The total number of finite element nodes was about 4,000.
The mesh density was increased in area of interest based on the case analyzed, for example,
around the GDL wrinkle. Figure 6 illustrates the modeled slope and the mesh discretization in
each of the four analyzed cases. It is noted that the geomembrane layer beneath the GDL along
the slope was modeled by considering a zero flow boundary condition at the bottom of the GDL.
Prior to the transient seepage computation, the modeled slope was brought to initial
equilibrium by specifying a zero pore pressure boundary condition at the bottom of the model.
Following the initial equilibrium, a transient boundary condition in the form of an infiltration
rate (as shown in Figure 5) was applied to the top of the model. Along the entire top side of the
model at the location of the gravel shown in Figure 6, a seepage face boundary condition was
prescribed. The seepage face boundary condition means that the total head at a particular
location does not exceed the elevation head (i.e., no ponding of water on the modeled slope).
© ASCE

Figure 6. Cover slope models showing mesh discretization in each of the analyzed cases.
CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS
Figure 7 presents the calculated FS as a function of time for each of the four analyzed cases. It is
observed that in two of the four analyzed cases the calculated FS decreased from an initial value
of about 1.5 to less than 1.0 at a later time, indicating a possible slope failure. The results of the
analyzed case are discussed in detail below.
Case 1 (base case). This case represents the adequately designed and constructed GDL. In this
case, the GDL was modeled to daylight near the toe of the cover slope. In addition, the GDL was
overlain by gravel close to the toe to allow for free drainage. The calculated initial FS before the
onset of infiltration (at t = 0.01 day in Figure 7) was 1.47. Once the assumed infiltration (i.e., the
rainfall event) began, a phreatic surface started building up in the GDL and the calculated FS
started decreasing slightly as a result of the water pressure in the cover soil. However, since the
GDL was daylighted, the water from the GDL was able to drain out of the cover surface near the
toe of the slope, resulting in a very limited pressure head build-up within the cover system. As
shown in Figure 7, the lowest calculated FS for Case 1 was 1.44, which occurred at 0.15 days (or
2.6 hours after the rainfall began).
© ASCE

Figure 7. Calculated factors of safety and critical slip surfaces for the four analyzed cases.
© ASCE

Case 2 (clogged GDL). In this case, a 0.9-m (3-ft) long clog was assumed to be formed 6.1-m
(20-ft) away from the daylighting joint shown in Figure 6. The clog was modeled as a region of
low permeability material in the GDL that was 100 times less permeable than the cover soil. As
shown in Figure 7b, the presence of a clog in the GDL resulted in the calculated FS dropping to
less than 1.0 in 0.15 days (or 2.6 hours after the rainfall began). At that time, the model showed
that water was built up in the GDL to a distance of about 5.8 m (19 ft) along the slope behind the
clog. The corresponding calculated water depth measured perpendicular to the slope was 0.09 m
(0.3 ft) above the top of GDL in the area behind the clog. As the rainfall continued, the
calculated FS decreased further. The results for Case 2 show that when the modeled GDL
became significantly clogged, the calculated FS dropped rapidly to less than 1.0, indicating a
possible imminent slope failure.
Case 3 (wrinkle in GDL). In this case, a 0.9-m (3-ft) long wrinkle was assumed to form in the
GDL and geomembrane 6.1-m (20-ft) away from the daylighting joint shown in Figure 6. It was
also assumed that the formed wrinkle did not pinch the GDL and therefore, the permeability of
the GDL remained unchanged. As shown in Figure 7c, the calculated FS decreased slightly to
about 1.41 at t = 0.09 days (or 1.2 hours after rainfall began). At that time, the water depth
measured perpendicular to the slope was calculated to be 0.03 m (0.1 ft) above the top of the
GDL in the area behind the wrinkle. Although there was a small build-up of pore pressure within
the GDL due to the wrinkle, it appears that majority of the water was still able to drain through
the GDL, resulting in only a slight reduction in the calculated FS.
Case 4 (no daylighting of GDL). In this case, the cover system was modeled without
daylighting of the GDL (i.e., no drainage outlet) near the toe of slope as shown in Figure 6.
Under this condition, the water had no free outlet to discharge, resulting in built-up of water
pressure within the cover. As shown in Figure 7, the calculated FS dropped to less than 1.0 after
about 6.9 days (or 3.8 days after the rainfall stopped). Although the calculated failure surface
appeared to be localized near the toe of the cover slope, this could cause a potential progressive
failure towards the upper portion of the slope as the soil buttress at the toe of the slope is lost and
large-displacement geosynthetic interface shear strengths progressively mobilize. The calculated
water depth after 6.9 days measured perpendicular to the slope was 0.46 m (1.5 ft) above the top
of GDL.
REMARKS
This paper presents results of a combined transient seepage and slope stability analysis to
evaluate the impact of changed drainage conditions on veneer slope stability of a landfill cover
system subjected to a rainfall event. The analysis results have demonstrated quantitatively that it
is critical to maintain free drainage of the GDL in a landfill cover system. The slope stability of
the system can be jeopardized when blockage of drainage occurs in the GDL and, under certain
adverse drainage conditions, a slope failure may occur during or after a rainfall event. The
numerical modeling framework presented in this paper can be used to improve engineering
design approaches and to perform forensic evaluations of the post-construction system
performance.
© ASCE

REFERENCES
Bonaparte, R., Gross, B.A., Daniel, D.A., Koerner, R.M., and Dwyer, S.F. (2004). “Draft
Technical Guidance for RCRA/CERCLA Final Covers.” United States Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington DC.
Daniel, D.E. and Gross, B.A. (1996). “Caps.” Section 6 in Assessment of Barrier Containment
Technologies, R.R. Rumer and J.K. Mitchell (eds.), National Technical Information
Services, PB96-180583, Springfield, VA, pp. 119-140.
Giroud, J.P., Bachus, R.C., and Bonaparte, R. (1995). “Influence of Water on the Stability of
Geosynthetic-Soil Layered Systems on Slopes.” Geosynthetics International, Vol. 2, No.
6, pp. 1149-1180.
Giroud, J.P. and Beech, J.F. (1989). “Stability of Soil Layers on Geosynthetic Lining Systems.”
Geosynthetics ’89 Conference Proceedings, Industrial Fabrics Association International,
St. Paul, MN, Vol. 1, pp. 35-46.
Green, W.H. and Ampt, C.A. (1911). “Studies on soil physics: flow of air and water through
soils.” J Agric Sci 4:1–24.Gross, B.A., Bonaparte, R., and Giroud, J.P. (2002). “Waste
Containment Systems: Problems and Lessons Learned.” Appendix F in Assessment and
Recommendations for Optimal Performance of Waste Containment Systems, R.
Bonaparte, D.E. Daniel, and R.M. Koerner, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
National Risk Management Research Laboratory.
Horton, R.E. (1933). “The role of infiltration in the hydrologic cycle.” Transactions, American
Geophysical Union 14: 446–460.
Koerner, R.M. and Soong, T.Y. (1998). “Analysis and Design of Veneer Cover Soils.”
Proceedings, Sixth International Conference on Geosynthetics, Industrial Fabrics
Association International, St. Paul, MN, Vol. 1, pp. 1-26.
Li, A.G., Yue, Z.Q., Tham, L.G., Lee, C.F., and Law, K.T. (2005). “Field monitored variations
of soil moisture and matric suction in saprolite slope.” Can Geotech J, 42:13–26.
Mein R.G. and Larson C.L. (1973). “Modeling infiltration during a steady rain.” Water
Resources Research 9(2):384–394.
Rahardjo, H., Lee, T.T., Leong, E.C., and Rezaur, R.B. (2005). “Response of a residual soil slope
to rainfall.” Can Geotech J, 42:340– 351.
Rocscience (2016). “SLIDE – 2-D Limit Equilibrium Slope Stability for Soil and Rock Slopes.”
User's Guide, Rocscience Software, Inc., Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Spencer, E. (1967). “A Method of Analysis of the Stability of Embankments Assuming Parallel
Inter-Slice Forces.” Géotechnique, Vol. 17, Issue 1, pp. 11 – 26, March 1967.
© ASCE

Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of A Landfill Cover System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of A Landfill Cover System

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of A Landfill Cover System

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017 GSP 276 170

Combined Seepage and Slope Stability Analysis of a Landfill Cover System

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

COVER SYSTEM GEOMETRY AND CASE SCENARIOS

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Figure 2. Case 2 – Cover System with Localized Clogging of the GDL.

Figure 3. Case 3 – Cover System with Localized Wrinkle in the GDL.

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Figure 4. Case 4 – Cover System with No Daylighting of the GDL.

MATERIAL PROPERTIES AND MODELING PROCEDURE

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Infiltration Rate (cm/day)

Infiltration Rate (ft/day)

Infiltration rate decreases from 0.9 cm/day

0.4 (0.03 ft/d) to 0 cm/day from t = 74 hr to

Figure 5. Soil infiltration rate assumed in the seepage analysis.

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

CALCULATIONS AND RESULTS

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

Geotechnical Frontiers 2017

You might also like