An ASAE Meeting Presentation

Paper Number: 054075

Installation of a High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)

Liner in a Beef Cattle Feedyard Storage Pond

Marty B. Rhoades, M.S.

West Texas A&M University, PO Box 60998, mrhoades@mail.wtamu.edu.

David B. Parker, Ph.D., P.E.

West Texas A&M University, PO Box 60998, dparker@mail.wtamu.edu.

Zena L. Pershcbacher-Buser, M.S.

West Texas A&M University, PO Box 60998, zperschbacher@mail.wtamu.edu.

Written for presentation at the

2005 ASAE Annual International Meeting
Sponsored by ASAE
Tampa Convention Center
Tampa, Florida
17 - 20 July 2005

Abstract. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality regulates feedyard retention pond
liners. They have stipulated that all feedyards must have liners that have a hydraulic conductivity of
1 x 10-7 cm/sec or less. These pond liners are typically constructed of a compacted clay surface not
less than 45 cm thick. These clay liners are subject to erosion from wind and water, as well as
vegetative growth. An alternative to clay liners is the installation of a geomembrane liner. A high
density poly-ethylene (HDPE)liner was installed at the West Texas A&M University Research Feedlot
in an attempt to reduce the erosion potential of the typical clay liner. Two years after installation, the
HDPE liner has been exposed to extremes of temperature ( -10 to 100º F), driving rains, snow and
extreme winds (~35 m/sec). The liner has withstood all forces thus far. This paper describes the
installation process, and equipment needed for a successful HDPE liner installation.
Keywords. feedyard, retention pond, liner, HDPE, runoff

The authors are solely responsible for the content of this technical presentation. The technical presentation does not necessarily reflect the
official position of the American Society of Agricultural Engineers (ASAE), and its printing and distribution does not constitute an
endorsement of views which may be expressed. Technical presentations are not subject to the formal peer review process by ASAE
editorial committees; therefore, they are not to be presented as refereed publications. Citation of this work should state that it is from an
ASAE meeting paper. EXAMPLE: Author's Last Name, Initials. 2005. Title of Presentation. ASAE Paper No. 05xxxx. St. Joseph, Mich.:
ASAE. For information about securing permission to reprint or reproduce a technical presentation, please contact ASAE at hq@asae.org or
269-429-0300 (2950 Niles Road, St. Joseph, MI 49085-9659 USA).
Introduction
The Texas Committee on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) requires all beef feedyards to observe
a zero-discharge policy concerning wastewater and surface runoff from the feedyard. The most
efficient means of containing the runoff water is in storage or retention ponds, where the water
is either evaporated, or used as a supplemental source of irrigation on adjacent cropland.
TCEQ (2004) regulations state that the ponds must be constructed with a liner designed by a
licensed Texas professional engineer and documented to have hydraulic conductivities no
greater than 1 x 10-7 centimeters per second (cm/sec), with a thickness of 45 cm or greater or its
equivalency in other materials.
Other states also have similar regulations. For example, New Mexico, N. Carolina, Oklahoma,
S. Dakota and Wisconsin all have maximum hydraulic conductivities of .00086 cm/day (Parker
et al, 1999b). Colorado, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri regulate on seepage rates, with
rages of 0.08 to 0.86 cm/day (Parker et al, 1999b). All the states listed have developed some
standard for earthen liner construction.
The Texas panhandle, which has become known as the “Cattle-feeding Capitol of the World” is
a semi-arid region, with an average of 19 inches of rainfall per year. The annual average
evaporation rate is 72 inches (AWMFH, 1992). Due to the low rainfall-high evaporation rate in
the area, the retention ponds may not contain water all year round. This means the compacted
clay typically used as a liner material is not always submerged. When dry, the clay will contract,
causing large cracks in the liner. The rainfall patterns for the Texas panhandle have historically
shown that precipitation as rain can come in violent thunderstorms, which can deposit an inch of
rain in an hour or less. When this large amount of water, usually moving with some velocity
moves across a dry clay liner, erosion occurs, which decreases effectiveness of the liner
(Parker et al,1999a).
Another challenge in maintaining a clay lined storage pond is the occurrence of vegetative
growth on the slopes of pond. Roots can penetrate the compacted clay, which allows a path for
nutrient movement below to retention pond (Parker et al, 199a). This vegetation can either be
mowed using heavy equipment or sprayed with herbicide. The slope of the retention pond may
be too steep for safe use of a tractor or mower. Herbicide use may not be desirable if the water
is to be used as an irrigation source.
An alternative for lining of the retention pond is the use of high-density-polyethylene (HDPE).
HDPE is a geomembrane, that, when properly installed, will have a very low seepage rate of.
HDPE is also resistant to erosion. The objectives of this paper will be to demonstrate the
method and equipment used for installing an HDPE liner in a feedyard runoff storage pond

Safety Emphasis
HDPE liner is difficult to work with, as it is heavy and bulky. At all times there were no less than
two people working together. Sand bags were placed on the loose edges of the liner in case of
wind gusts. When operating equipment, rollover protection devices and seat belts were always
in working order. At no time was anyone allowed under a lifted load.

2
Soil Preparation
The retention pond construction was done by an outside contractor. A 30 cm compacted clay
liner was installed in 15 cm lifts by the contractor. After testing, it was determined that this liner
met the requirements for seepage. The finished pond had a bottom length of 114 m and a width
of 15.25 m. The finished side slope was 3:1. This gave a total surface area to be covered of
approximately 4100 m2. Prior to liner installation, the soil surface was smoothed with a tractor-
mounted rake. This removed any large pieces of soil or rocks, and pulled down any soil from
the anchor trench (Figs 1 and 2). Soil in the bottom of the pond from raking was removed for
use in the anchor trench.

Figure 1: Smoothing the liner sides with a 1.8 m wide landscape rake.

3
 Figure 2: Pulling excess soil away from the anchor ditch

Equipment
One roll of 40 mil (1mm thick) HDPE was 6.7 m wide, approximately 200 m long and weighed
approximately 2300 kg. This necessitated having appropriate equipment to safely handle the
roll during unrolling and installation. A Mustang model 630 3500 kg capacity hoist (Fig 3) was
used for moving and holding the rolls during placement. A custom crafted 6 m long tractor
mount clamp (Fig 4) was used to pull the material off the roll and roughly place it for installation.

4
 Figure 3: Moving a partial roll of liner into position to be unrolled.

Once pulled into position with the tractor, the sheet was adjusted by hand to achieve a 10 cm
overlap with the next sheet. This was done with one person checking overlap and one person
on the opposite side of the sheet. Each person, using sheet metal grips, pulled the sheet in the
appropriate direction to achieve the overlap.

5
 Figure 4: Pulling the liner material into position with a tractor. Note the large custom-crafted
clamp used to pull the material into rough position.

Welding
The ambient temperature during liner installation was about 5º C, with heavy overcast clouds,
and very light winds. This was ideal weather for installation because the liner was contracted
fully, and there was little danger of excessive expansion. The light winds made the installation
possible, as sheets that are not anchored can become airborne and dangerous.
The liner was seamed into place using a Wedge It® hot wedge welder (PWT, Inc., Diamond
Springs, CA), at a welding temperature of 250º C (Fig 5). The wedge welder is a self contained
machine that heats the material and passes the overlapping sheet between a pair of rollers,
molecularly bonding the material in a double seamed weld (Fig 6). The wedge welder was
powered by a 10,000-watt generator (Miller Welding, Amarillo, TX) at 115 volts. The large
generator was necessary as the extension cord had to be 60 m long in order to reach
completely across the width of the retention pond. The wedge welder has a working range of
109 - 120 volts, so a heavy cord must be utilized. In this case, a 12-guage cord was used.

6
 Fig 5: Wedge Welding a seam in the liner

Fig 6: A close up photo of a wedge weld. Note the double seam.

In the event of a “burn-out,” where the wedge welder burned through the material, or in the
event of a short seam, an extrusion welder was used. The particular welder used here was an
X3® Extrusion Welder (PWT, Inc, Diamond Springs, CA) with 5 mm HDPE welding rod. The
extrusion welder feeds the welding rod into a grinder, where it is melted (195º C), and extruded

7
onto the joint to be seamed. The extrusion welder requires a power source capable of
supplying 230 volts, typically at a distance of 60m. The 10,000-watt generator and a 12-guage
cord did an admirable job of supplying a steady power supply for this.
Extrusion welding requires more labor than wedge welding. The joint must first be “tacked,”
(temporarily jointed using a hot air gun and pressed together). The area to be welded must then
be ground to remove any oxidation. The joint can then be extruded (fig 7).

Fig 7: Photo of an extruded weld joint.

Anchoring
The welded liner must be anchored properly in a trench. Typically, a 60 cm deep by 60 cm wide
trench is enough to hold a liner. The liner is tucked around the perimeter of the trench (Figs. 8
and 9) and backfilled with soil excavated by trench construction. This soil is then compacted to
ensure a solid fill.
Liner Material
3
1

Anchor Trench

Fig 8: Schematic showing how the liner is tucked into the anchor trench.

8
 Fig 9: Backfilling the anchor trench to tie the liner down.
To further ensure the liner does not blow out, Whirlybird® attic turbines were installed at the four
corners of the liner and spread every 12 m on all sides (fig 10). These create a slight negative
pressure under the liner as the wind speeds increase, which helps to hold the liner down. The
Texas Panhandle is known for high winds, especially in the spring months. During the last two
years, wind speeds of up to 35 m/sec were measured at a nearby weather station. Even with
these high winds and relatively little water in the pond, the attic vents plus the anchor trench
were enough to keep the liner firmly in place.
The original engineering design of the geomembrane liner called for the liner only to be tucked
in the anchor trench at the top, cover the sides, and terminate 1.5 meters from the tow in the
bottom of the pond. This end was to be anchored with a double row of sand bags. This design
was installed by an outside contractor. After installation, wind speeds increased and caused the
entire North side of the liner to blow out of the pond, ripping the welds in the Northeast and
Northwest corners. This effectively destroyed the original liner. An estimate of replacing the
liner was obtained at a cost of $60,000.00

9
 Fig. 10: Photo showing the attic vents in place along the top edge of the liner.

Economics
While a formal economic analysis of the liner installation was not done some costs and time of
the liner installation are presented here. This does not include the cost of the excavation of the
retention pond itself.
The HDPE was purchased from Colorado Lining (Houston, TX) at a delivered cost of $4.84 per
m2. A total of 7 rolls were needed to completely line the pond. An attempt was made to rent the
welders, but availability was limited, so the welders were purchased. The X3 Extrusion welder
plus 10 rolls of 5 MM HDPE Welding rod was purchased for $8500.00. The wedge welder was
purchased for $7500.00. A backhoe was rented for one day to excavate the anchor ditch at a
cost of $400.00. The generator and small tractor was owned by the university, so costs were
not figured on those.
The liner was installed over an 11-day period. The welding was accomplished in three days
(Table 1). The first two days of welding liner was accomplished by two laborers. The final day
was done with six laborers.
Table 1: Days to complete liner installation
Item Days to complete
Anchor trench excavation 1
Raking and Smoothing pond sides 2
Laying and Welding liner 3
Backfilling and compacting anchor trench 1
Installing attic vents 2
Finish work (grading edges and trimming excess liner) 2

10
Conclusion
The installation of the HDPE liner was accomplished with relatively little labor with the judicious
use of the proper equipment. Installation was aided by fortuitous weather, it being cool, cloudy,
and still. After two years, the liner is still in place, with no leaks detected. Even with high winds
and small water amounts, the liner has shown no signs of ripping, tearing or blowing out. It is
concluded that HDPE may be an alternative to clay liners, which are subject to erosion, which
may in time reduce the effectiveness of the liner to hold feedyard runoff water.

References
Agricultural Waste Management Field Handbook. 1992. USDA. Soil Conservation Society.
Parker, D.B, D.E. Eisenhauer, D.D. Schulte, and D.L. Martin. 1999a. Modeling Seepage From
an Unlined Beef Cattle Feedlot Runoff Storage Pond. Trans. of the ASAE 42(5): 1437-
1445.
Parker, D.B, D.D. Schulte and D.E. Eisenhauer. 1999b. Seepage from Earthen Animal Waste
Ponds and Lagoons - An Overview of Research Results and State Regulations. Trans.
of the ASAE 42(2): 458-493.
TCEQ. 2004. Control of Certain Activities by Rule - Subchapter B: Concentrated Animal
Feeding Operations. Ch 321. Austin, TX.” Texas Committee on Environmental Quality.

11